The Wrath of God

[agedman]

No, I think that the case CAN be made from scripture that the Son was brutalized … and that the Father was not a “helpless bystander” in the process.

• [John 19:11 ESV] 11 Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin."

• [John 10:17-18 ESV] 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."

What has yet to be shown is the WRATH (strong vengeful anger or retributory punishment) of the Father poured onto the Son … EVER!

Read my post closely and you will see that you and I agree that the Father did NOT brutalize the Son.

He withdrew support that the evil in humanity and the demonic forces could do their worst.

There is not a presentation in the Scriptures to show that God's wrath was ever poured out upon His Son.

 

[JonC]

You use much of their terminology though, especially as in Vindication and the wrath of man and the world!

I may, but not because NT Wright said it. I use those words because the Bible uses those words.

Here is an example:

He who vindicates Me is near;
Who will contend with Me?
Let us stand up to each other;
Who has a case against Me?
Let him draw near to Me. (Isaiah 50:8)

 

[agedman]

26 The kings of the earth set themselves in array, And the rulers were gathered together, Against the Lord, and against his Anointed:
27 for of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together,
28 to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council foreordained to come to pass Acts 4.

I think this whole passage of the experience of John and Peter may be the only time that the assembly has ever as one voice spoke in prayer and praise without rehearsal.

What a great passage, the whole chapter, should be nailed into the heart of every believer, for then perhaps the very ground will shake and people will boldly speak of the Savior!

 

[agedman]

Why is it that folks struggle and even separate over "theories"?

We see this not only here on the BB, but in the world, too. The Scopes trial is perhaps one of the items on a long list of divisive results of arguing over "theories." (I am taking the view that non believers consider the Biblical creation is nothing more than a theory). There are theories in just about all matters of science, physics, architecture, fine arts, ... I sat listening to a couple old professors arguing over the thinking of how the effects of lack of nurture would effect a child. Each had their theory, but neither had an answer.

There is not "one size answers all" concerning the work of Christ's reconciliation.
If one looks at Irenaeus's "Recapitulation Theory" there can be fault found, for it does not cover all aspects, and the same with perhaps the early "Ransom Theory" and so forth.

Every theories developed after 100 AD have some hold on the truth, but how folks present the theory often stray from the original. For example, the Ransom problem is who is "paid?" The early church fathers do not specify, and neither do the Scriptures. Certainly it wasn't the demonic world getting some payment, and neither would it be God, for He is the creator. It would make no sense for the payment to be made to Him who already exceeds any payment capability.

Or, how about the Recapitulation theory? The idea that Christ is the second Adam is taught in Scripture. But the teachers went too far! They compared Eve to Mary, and the fruit tree to the Cross! Such comparing and contrasting is (imo) extra biblical and totally unnecessary. Why not just acknowledge that Christ was the second Adam who persevered to victory over sin and the grave?

On and on one could go.

If you have to chose one, then I suggest you choose the Victorious Christ. It is the one that is most predominately displayed in the Scriptures and has complete support of both Old and New Testament.
As I pointed out in an early post (perhaps on another thread), Calvin and Luther both placed this theory above all others.

Gustaf Aulen (I don't remember how to put the accent over the "e") revived this earliest presentation of the apostles and church fathers during the openings of the 20th century. I have not read his writings, and probably won't. I have less time then I did, yesterday, and why waist it.

 

[Aaron]

He took upon himself the evil of all, but remained without sin. THAT is Scripture. If at any time He actually sinned, He then cannot remain the redeemer, the JUST and the justifier.

God judged our sin in the body of Christ. THAT is Scripture.

 

[Aaron]

That Jesus did not bear the punishment of sin is an antichrist notion. It's the same sin that Peter committed, when he rebuked Christ for saying He would have to suffer many things in Jerusalem. Peter's rebuke sounded all devout and holy, and I'm sure he felt quite so when doing it. But Jesus would have none of it.

So far, we've seen in the example of the Ark, and in the details of the law of the sin offering, that the Lamb of God was indeed buffeted, slain and burned by God for sin. Not by men.

A third picture is the veil of the Temple, that is to say, His flesh ( Hebrews 10:20 ).

It was torn from the top to the bottom when Jesus was crucified.

Who tore it?

 

[JonC]

God judged our sin in the body of Christ. THAT is Scripture.

No, it isn't. That is an ADDITION to Scripture. That Christ bore our sins in His body IS Scripture.

 

[JonC]

That Jesus did not bear the punishment of sin is an antichrist notion.

Have you even paused to consider that aspects that make up Penal Substitution Theory was considered heresy, a doctrine of Satan, until the 16th Century?

Your belief is Roman Catholic with a twist. Rather than going to God's Word for doctrine you start with RCC doctrine and reform it. That is your error.

 

[atpollard]

God judged our sin in the body of Christ. THAT is Scripture.

Verse please.

The only verses I turned up with both “judged” (or “judge”) and “sin” are …

• [Psalms 109:7 KJV] 7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.

• [1 Samuel 2:25 KJV] 25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

… which are probably not the Scripture you had in mind.

(I just like to read it for myself when anybody claims “Scripture says”.)

 

[atpollard]

Aph, the Hebrew word most commonly used for 'wrath' (42 times) is also the most common word used for 'anger' (171 times).
Young's Analytical Concordance is your friend.

… and “nose”, “face” or “nostrils”.

Just me, but … I think Hebrew could use a few more words.

On a more serious note, the origin of the word and it’s usage seems to imply a subtle difference between the OT and NT “lessons”. Hebrew taught us about God’s anger at sin … the passion that flares up and calms down. Greek gave us two words, one for that sort of anger that comes and goes … and wrath … that personality that does not change but seeks vengeance against evil. Both lessons are found in both testaments. It was just curious that the languages seemed better suited to teaching different aspects of the same truth:

God can get ‘pissed off’ at a wrong for a season and then let it go, and it is in God’s immutable nature to forever HATE SIN.

Just kinda cool.

 

[37818]

By unbiblical I mean the idea that God substituted Christ for us in terms of judgment and punishment is not only absent Scripture but is also opposed to what is written in Scripture.

Then Isaiah 53:6 where it says it laid on Him our iniquity becomes meaningless gibberish. And we then must still all perish in the lake of fire. Since it then would not have been done to keep us from there.

 

[37818]

No it isn't. Penal Substitution Theory uses those verses, but adds to it. Most false doctrine is like Penal Substitution Theory - it is mostly true, but what is false makes it a serious error.

Unless it means a penal subtution it does nothing to keep us from hell.

 

[JonC]

Then Isaiah 53:6 where it says it laid on Him our iniquity becomes meaningless gibberish. And we then must still all perish in the lake of fire. Since it then would not have been done to keep us from there.

Not at all. Just as Christianity held for 1500 years before men came up with Penal Substitution Theory, Christ bore our sins, the Father laid our sins on Him, and He willingly shared our infirmaty.

This is essential Chriatian doctrine, even without your additions.

 

[atpollard]

Then Isaiah 53:6 where it says it laid on Him our iniquity becomes meaningless gibberish. And we then must still all perish in the lake of fire. Since it then would not have been done to keep us from there.

Isaiah 53:6 [NASB95]

All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.​

Iniquity (Merriam-Webster):
1: gross injustice
2: a wicked act or thing

Wrath (Merriam-Webster):
1: strong vengeful anger or indignation

(Indignation: anger aroused by something unjust, unworthy, or mean)​

2: retributory punishment for an offense or a crime

(Retributory = adjective related to RECOMPENSE: to give something to by way of compensation - as for a service rendered or damage incurred)​

Words have meanings and Scripture actually SAYS SOMETHING. I do not understand the reluctance among those that disagree to roll up your sleeves and just test the claims against the definitions and the scriptures.

Isaiah 53:6 DOES say that the LORD caused … so that would be GOD caused.

Isaiah 53:6 DOES say that the LORD caused the iniquity of us all … our iniquity means our gross injustice and our wicked acts.

Isaiah 53:6 DOES say that the LORD caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him … Him being Jesus Christ.

So what DOES Isaiah 53:6 say: GOD caused our gross injustice and our wicked acts to “fall on” Jesus Christ.

That seems to me to agree with many other scripture verses, but here is just one other for confirmation of my claim: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” - 2 Corinthians 5:21

Does Isaiah 53:6 say that God’s wrath (strong vengeful anger or punishment repaid for an offense or a crime) “fell on” Jesus Christ?

No, it does not actually SAY that. That may be IMPLIED by context or theology and many clearly INFER that to be the case, but the actual SCRIPTURE VERSE itself does not EXPLICITLY or IMPLICITLY state that.

Here are the verses related to the Lake of Fire:

Revelations 19:20

And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.​

Revelations 20:10

And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.​

Revelations 20:14-15

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.​

The only portion that might apply to us is Revelations 20:15 “And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”

Nothing in Isaiah 53:6 and the lack of reference to “God’s wrath” suggests that our name is not written in the book of life.

Scripture says what it says … our job is to discover exactly what it does say.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

On a more serious note, the origin of the word and it’s usage seems to imply a subtle difference between the OT and NT “lessons”. Hebrew taught us about God’s anger at sin … the passion that flares up and calms down. Greek gave us two words, one for that sort of anger that comes and goes … and wrath … that personality that does not change but seeks vengeance against evil. Both lessons are found in both testaments. It was just curious that the languages seemed better suited to teaching different aspects of the same truth:

God can get ‘pissed off’ at a wrong for a season and then let it go, and it is in God’s immutable nature to forever HATE SIN.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I don't think you are right. God cannot change His mind because He must either change it from better to worse or from worse to better, and either would make Him imperfect.
Numerous Scriptures say that God is unchangeable: In Numbers 23:19, God does not repent. In Malachi 3:6, God says, "I am the LORD; I do not change." In James 1:7, God is 'The Father of light in whom is no variation or shadow of turning.' I have quoted Psalms 7:11 several times to show that God's anger is not a changeable thing.
It is true that God does new things which seem like changes of plan, but in the light of the passages above, we must understand that those new things were planned in eternity although they were executed in time. For example, God made Saul king and then deposed him. We even read in 1 Samuel 15:35 that 'The LORD repented [or 'regretted' NKJV] that He had made Saul king over Israel.' But in the very same chapter, Samuel tells Saul, 'And also the strength of Israel will not lie nor repent [NKJV 'relent']; for he is not a man that he should repent' {v.29). The Hebrew word is the same in both verses.

This probably needs a new thread, but I don't have the time to start one, nor, probably, to contribute much to one.
Any good Systematic Theology will cover what is called the Simplicity of God. There is also an excellent recent book on the subject, All that is in God by James Dolezal, a Baptist (Reformation Heritage Books, 2017)..

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Have you even paused to consider that aspects that make up Penal Substitution Theory was considered heresy, a doctrine of Satan, until the 16th Century?

Someone else came up with this claim an another thread. I asked him which Synod or which Papal decree he was referring to and he went strangely quiet. So perhaps you can help me.
I find the claim rather hard to believe since many of the Church Fathers support the Doctrine of Penal Substitution in their writings.

Your belief is Roman Catholic with a twist. Rather than going to God's Word for doctrine you start with RCC doctrine and reform it. That is your error.

It does rather seem to me that it is your belief that is Roman Catholic. You start off by saying that you believe in nothing but Scripture, and then, when your views are shown to be wrong, you appeal to the Church fathers. I have debated a few Roman Catholics over the years, and that tends to be their tactic.

BTW, Infirmity is not spelled 'infirmaty.' Just saying.

 

[atpollard]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I don't think you are right. God cannot change His mind because He must either change it from better to worse or from worse to better, and either would make Him imperfect.

Read the OT verses on anger … sometimes God relents on his anger - He does not go through with punishing His people, but forgives them. In the OT … “the Lord’s anger burned”, but the punishment was not forever. So the Lord can be angry, chastise, and forgive.

Then there is the Lord’s ETERNAL anger against sin that ends in the lake of fire.

Two different angers in GREEK, but only one Hebrew word (“nose”) to cover both. The Hebrew word picture comes from heavy breathing and flared nostrils … that is closer to the Greek “passionate anger” (thymos) than the Greek “angry disposition” (ogre).

Here:
[Exodus 4:14]

Then the anger of the LORD burned against Moses, and He said, "Is there not your brother Aaron the Levite? I know that he speaks fluently. And moreover, behold, he is coming out to meet you; when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart.​

Did God hate Moses forever with an anger that was a settled disposition ending in the lake of fire (like God hates Sin) or did God “get over it” and forgive Moses?

 

[Aaron]

Verse please.

The only verses I turned up with both “judged” (or “judge”) and “sin” are …

• [Psalms 109:7 KJV] 7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.

• [1 Samuel 2:25 KJV] 25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

… which are probably not the Scripture you had in mind.

(I just like to read it for myself when anybody claims “Scripture says”.)

Well, I've been posting the verses for days, but if you'd like another

1 Peter 2:24

 

[37818]

@JonC
I simply have no reason not to understand a penal substitutional atonement from the Scripture.

 

[37818]

Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ