Transferred Wrath

[Carbon]

Who killed Jesus?

The Father, of course.

 

[Carbon]

I love gotquestions.org. My experience from reading their answers is that they lean towards Calvinism. To quantify my opinion ... on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being Arminianism and 10 being Calvinism I would put the scale at 8.

I remember you saying something about this, like this, a while ago.
Interesting.

 

[Carbon]

Come let us reason together and look closely at what it says and what it does not say.

Isaiah 53:4, 10 [ESV] 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. ... 10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

In verse 4, note closely that it DOES NOT say that Jesus WAS smitten by God. It DOES say that "WE" esteemed him smitten by God. This is an opinion of men rather than a pronouncement from God. Let us quickly look at the fulfillment of this in the NT:

• Matthew 27:39-44 [ESV] And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross." So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.
• Are these really the people whose spiritual insight we want to be following? These are the people that "esteemed him stricken by God" as Isaiah predicted.

In verse 10 it states that it was THE WILL OF God to crush Jesus. First, acknowledging what it DOES SAY ... this action (presumably the beating and crucifixion, we must infer the meaning of "crush" since Jesus was not literally crushed) was the WILL of God. God meant it to happen just as it did. Now if I may be permitted to split a "God-breathed" hair. It would have been a simple matter for Isaiah to have written that the LORD crushed him (Jesus), but he did not. It was merely the will of God that Jesus BE crushed.

Who killed Jesus?

• Act 2:22-23 [ESV] "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men."
• "Lawless men" killed Jesus. While they were clearly the tool of God's "will", there is nothing suggesting they were the instrument of God's wrath ... Is there?

So who says Jesus death was about WRATH?
Only the crowd mocking God in Matthew 27 (and PSA).

Can you see why I am reluctant to embrace WRATH as God's motive without some clearer scriptural proof?

What if it was the will of the FATHER and SON that the beloved SON should be crushed (suffer and die at the hands of evil men) to obtain the goal of CURSING sin and utterly defeating its power over all who are "in Christ" ... thereby redeeming a people for the GODHEAD that will honor the SON and bring glory to the FATHER?
[WRATH never enters into the picture.] What in Isiah 53 needs to be changed? Anything?

Curious, are you denying that there is any wrath in Isaiah 53?

 

[atpollard]

We


Hey again.

What's a curse? What does it mean to curse sin?

Do you think it has anything to do with the curses for breaking the Covenant laws? (I linked to them)

Or is that a wild stretch of the imagination do you suppose? 'm just asking...

Seems a picture of God's wrath to me, if Scripture is to have one.

Let’s save that for another topic.
I have lots of observations on the subject, but ALTERNATIVE theories of Atonement do not advance the discussion on PSA and wrath and anything that we deserve being transferred to Jesus … they just muddy the waters.

I was responding to a post that suggested that there was only ONE way to understand Isaiah 53, so I merely offered an alternative to ask what would need to be changed in Isaiah 53 to make the alternative true (to point out that there WAS more than one possible answer).

I would LOVE to discuss Christ atonement as victory over sin (including John 3 and Moses staff and Sin cursed), just not here and now. OK?

 

[atpollard]

And by using this word, the opponents manufacture a accusation against PSA that is not a part of PSA and then ask that they prove this from the Bible. Was that word found anywhere in the GotQuestions definition of PSA that you posted? Nope.

Yup.

Quoting from Got Questions [emphasis added]:

In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. [punishment transferred] As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.​

​

The word penal means “related to punishment for offenses,” and substitution means “the act of a person taking the place of another.” [the definition of transfer] So, penal substitution is the act of a person taking the punishment for someone else’s offenses. [please explain how that is NOT a punishment transfer] In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the Substitute, and the punishment He took (at the cross) was ours, [how was the punishment HE TOOK our PUNISHMENT if it was not transferred?] based on our sin (1 Peter 2:24).​

​

According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1). Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve [Jesus took our punishment, but it was not a transfer as defined by Merriam-Webster; then what was it?] for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient [yet another way of saying transfer] of sin’s penalty.​