Transferred Wrath

[DialecticSkeptic]

For the sake of argument, if we accept the ransom theory as a given … God was no less sovereign under [that theory] than PSA, so Isaiah 53 was no less true. However, Satan was the one to whom the debt was paid under the ransom theory, so it was the LORD's will that Satan punish Jesus.

One problem with that approach—and, my goodness, it has several—is that Isaiah 53 has nothing to say about a ransom, either being demanded by or paid to any captor. The ransom theory fails under the legal, covenantal, and sacrificial structure of the chapter which emphasizes God as the source of both holy wrath and propitiatory atonement.

Isaiah 53 is not about a ransom paid to Satan, or any captor at all. It is about a sin-bearing substitute who suffers the just penalty of divine wrath in the place of the guilty (as my post carefully explained, so I shall not repeat it here). The suffering Servant is stricken and crushed by God (vv. 4-5), not Satan. He is crushed because of our iniquities, not because a captor demanded a ransom—iniquities that deserve punishment, which he bore in our stead. And he is offered as a guilt offering to the LORD (v. 10), not as a trade with demonic forces.

ADDENDUM: The ransom theory articulated by Origen is simply not credible. For one thing, there is no textual evidence, whether in Mark 10:45 or anywhere else in scripture, that a ransom is demanded by or paid to Satan. Moreover, he is never portrayed as a legitimate creditor, nor does scripture anywhere describe Satan as being owed anything. The very suggestion that Satan could ever place God in a position of having to negotiate for our release should be offensive and repugnant to any Christian, in my heavily biased opinion.

The whole ransom-to-Satan framework assumes that Satan has rightful ownership over sinners and with whom God must negotiate, an idea that is just not biblical. God has never surrendered or given up ownership of mankind. "All souls are mine," God says. Satan is an illegitimate slave master. It is untenable to suggest that God redeems us from Satan for a price because such a transaction would tacitly legitimize Satan's ownership, when God has been the rightful owner all along—not only of mankind but even of Satan himself!

(I had to confront this argument several years ago with a member of my old Baptist church and wrote a three-page refutation, approximately 1,600 words. I may reproduce it as a separate post.)

I merely point out that the punishment coming from the Father is an assumption of PSA inferred from scripture, rather than an explicit statement of scripture.

Well, it's either an assumption imposed on scripture (eisegesis) or an inference drawn from scripture (exegesis). It can't be both, my friend.

But it is, indeed, an explicit statement of scripture: "We thought he was being punished by God, afflicted for something he had done. But he was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins" (vv. 4-5; emphasis mine).

The very word “punishment” is far more frequently used in scripture in a far different context that “redemption.”

Only if one rejects the redemptive-historical hermeneutic. I don't.

That is why there were so many other theories prior to PSA and why other views persist.

That is at once both simplistic and reductionistic, and I strongly suspect it wouldn't survive scrutiny.

It is not a matter of my not wanting to discuss it, but a case that YOU do not hold those details of PSA true that I have scriptural objections to.

Yes, I do. For example, regarding Christ taking our place in bearing the punishment that our sins are due, you asked, "Would such a transfer [of punishment]"—that is, substitution—"not violate God's standard of justice, that the innocent shall not suffer for the guilty?" I affirm penal substitutionary atonement, which by definition involves Christ being our substitute or taking our place under divine punishment. And no, it would not violate God's standard of justice, for Christ was not innocent because "God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21), "becoming a curse for us" (Gal 3:13), which is why he cried out with a loud voice, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34; cf. Ps. 22:1).

You are simply not the correct opponent to defend the portions of PSA that I object to.

Your call. But I get it.

It is your opinion, right or wrong, that the cup of which Jesus spoke was the cup of wrath from the OT.

It is not an ad hoc opinion, it is an exegetical conclusion. And it is not just from the OT but also the NT. This, then, is yet another worthwhile discussion you're passing up.

Jesus was not EXPLICIT in that, and no NT writer was explicit in making that connection.

As any trinitarian knows, an explicit reference is not necessary.

Even if that is true, your chosen definition of PSA does not list that as a required belief of PSA, so I would be free to reject it and still claim orthodoxy to your definition of PSA. Thus it is a moot point to PSA (as defined).

On the contrary, it is indeed a required belief of PSA as defined in my post ("bore the punishment for sin … satisfying divine justice"). It is not explicit, of course, but my definition hinges on A LOT of things not explicitly stated, such as Christ being fully God and fully human (apart from which PSA as defined in my post collapses on itself).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I started this topic assuming that we—[myself and those with whom I was conversing]—had a common understanding of what PSA advocated and taught. I quickly discovered that the definition of PSA was as slippery as the definition of Calvinism. I wished to avoid repeating the same error with you, so I wanted a common definition and understanding of what PSA means before asking anything about it. Your chosen definition indicates that I would be asking you to defend beliefs that you do not hold on "transferred wrath" and the need for "justice and mercy to balance." So, there was no need to ask you those questions.

For what it's worth (and as far as I could tell), none of your interlocutors who believe in PSA appeared to recognize this so-called "transferred wrath" term, language that's a bit strange under PSA and sounded like a rhetorical trap. Myself, I do recognize it, but from opponents of PSA—which is a concern (potential straw man).

What should be immediately obvious is that your definition is significantly different in its details [from] the underlined portions of the explanation … [provided by Got Questions Ministries].

Since you're not discussing this with anyone from Got Questions Ministries, it really doesn't matter how they define PSA. The only thing that matters is how your interlocutor defines it, and it shouldn't matter if three different interlocutors define it three different ways; engage each form of the doctrine on its own merits with the person defending it. Honestly, different people will have different levels of knowledge and understanding of the doctrine, so you should expect differences in views. (And if you expect differences, you won't become frustrated when you inevitably encounter them.)

Listen, if someone rejects your description (whether entirely or partially) for misrepresenting PSA, I think you should cut them a little slack and understand that they likely mean it doesn't correspond with what they believe about PSA—which, again, should be perfectly fine because, at the very least, not everyone has the same level of knowledge or understanding. One person might be a relatively new Christian, another person might be a senior pastor, etc. Find out what their view of PSA asserts and the language they use and target that for criticism.

Thank you for the conversation, but I think we have nothing to debate or discuss.

And that is telling by itself, but also acceptable. I enjoy seeing how my views fare under critical scrutiny but I can't force anyone to provide it.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

In my opinion, anyone who says God punished Jesus is wrong, since Jesus was sinless.

He was—until God made him to be sin for us, becoming a curse for us (i.e., judicially cursed by God; cf. Deut. 21:23). He bore the judicial curse, wrath, and abandonment that we deserved.

I don't think God's forgiveness demands justice. Since God is just, the 70 x 7 would imply that forgiveness doesn't demand justice.

This claim appears to contradict the entire covenantal logic of the cross. Forgiveness in scripture is never the mere waiving of guilt; it is the removal of guilt through propitiatory atonement. That is why Christ had to die. God doesn't forgive like a lenient judge who simply says, "Never mind." He forgives as a just judge who deals with guilt through a sin-bearing Substitute. God is merciful, that is true, but mercy does not override or ignore justice. Instead, mercy is exercised through justice at the cross.

Romans 3:25-26 God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat [propitiation, ESV] accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus' faithfulness.
​

To deny that God's forgiveness demands justice is to render the cross unnecessary. Why did Christ suffer and die if forgiveness could be given apart from satisfaction? That would turn Calvary into a tragic overreaction. But scripture teaches that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Justice is not ignored or bypassed—it is fulfilled.

One cannot transfer the penalty of man to God, …

Our substitute, who was made to be sin for us and became a curse for us, was fully man.

But your claim makes me wonder: Can one "transfer" the righteousness of God to man?

 

[ReverendRV]

He was—until God made him to be sin for us, becoming a curse for us (i.e., judicially cursed by God; cf. Deut. 21:23). He bore the judicial curse, wrath, and abandonment that we deserved.




This claim appears to contradict the entire covenantal logic of the cross. Forgiveness in scripture is never the mere waiving of guilt; it is the removal of guilt through propitiatory atonement. That is why Christ had to die. God doesn't forgive like a lenient judge who simply says, "Never mind." He forgives as a just judge who deals with guilt through a sin-bearing Substitute:

​

Romans 3:25-26 God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat [propitiation, ESV] accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus' faithfulness.​

​

God is merciful, that is true, but mercy does not override or ignore justice. Instead, mercy is exercised through justice at the cross.

To deny that God's forgiveness demands justice is to render the cross unnecessary. Why did Christ suffer and die if forgiveness could be given apart from satisfaction? That would turn Calvary into a tragic overreaction. But scripture teaches that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Justice is not ignored or bypassed—it is fulfilled.




Our substitute, who was made to be sin for us and became a curse for us, was fully man.

But your claim makes me wonder: Can one "transfer" the righteousness of God to man?

The Bible is at first Sweet; then Bitter. If PSA seems Bitter, it's still Good for Us. If God Chastising his Son leaves a bitter taste in our mouths, and Chastisement of his Son is Biblical; this follows the Model Revelation 10:10 suggests..

It seems to me that less of the Reformed like PSA these days...

 

[makesends]

Eleanor said:
Ransom is not a theory

FYI: RANSOM THEORY OF ATONEMENT

Bro, @Eleanor is not ignorant. That's not a good way to argue, missing the point she was making —pretty obviously making, I thought— that the fact of the Ransom was not just theory, not to mention the other two terms of PSA.

 

[ReverendRV]

It's clear to me that the Great Flood, as a Day of Judgment, is a Type of Christ's Crucifixion. It is a neglected evidence for PSA...

 

[makesends]

Jesus says to forgive 70 x 7 with no mention of justice. I don't think God's forgiveness demands justice. Since God is just the 70x7 would imply forgiveness doesn't demand justice. Is it just the the Almighty be put on a cross to save men who came from nothing and have no worth save what God assigns him for His glory and pleasure. Could the slapping of God's hand be atoned for by sending all mankind to hell?

But to apply what Jesus said to us to do, doesn't translate to apply to what God 'should' do. We are not the ones who punish sin. "Since God is just the 70x7 would imply [his] forgiveness doesn't demand [implies] justice".

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It's clear to me that the Great Flood, as a Day of Judgment, is a Type of Christ's Crucifixion. It is a neglected evidence for PSA...

Noah was saved through judgment, not from judgment, and so are we—in Christ. But beyond that? I don't see the connection.

 

[makesends]

It's clear to me that the Great Flood, as a Day of Judgment, is a Type of Christ's Crucifixion. It is a neglected evidence for PSA...

Unless a type is attributed as such in Scripture, I wouldn't be in a hurry to claim it is one. That it parallels, and even has strong ties via 'baptism' to things of Christ —cleansing, inundation even, and other matters— does not quite mean typology. If the Great Flood is neglected evidence for PSA, it doesn't need to be rated as a 'type' of Christ's Crucifixion.

 

[ReverendRV]

But to apply what Jesus said to us to do, doesn't translate to apply to what God 'should' do. We are not the ones who punish sin. "Since God is just the 70x7 would imply [his] forgiveness doesn't demand [implies] justice".

In my opinion, it can be a whole bunch of hand waving, to direct attention away from the Bible saying the Chastisement for our Peace was upon Him...

We are Sola Scripturists...

 

[ReverendRV]

Noah was saved through judgment, not from judgment, and so are we—in Christ. But beyond that? I don't see the connection.

The connection is that it was Judgment Day, equivalent to the coming Day of Judgment; and equivalent to the third Day of Substitute Judgment at the Crucifixion. The Flood is a Type of the Church being Saved in Christ as our Ark which withstood the Wrath of God for Us...

 

[ReverendRV]

Baptism in Christianity, while often understood as a symbolic act of cleansing and new life, can also be viewed in relation to God's wrath, specifically in the context of Jesus's baptism and the Old Testament figures like Noah and the priests in the Jordan. Essentially, baptism can be seen as a symbolic descent into the waters of judgment, mirroring Jesus's willingness to take on the wrath of God on behalf of humanity.

Elaboration:

Baptism as a Symbol of Judgment:

In the context of the Old Testament, Noah's ark and the priests in the Jordan are presented as examples of people who were submerged in water (Noah's ark during the flood, the priests during the crossing of the Jordan River) but remained safe. These are seen as foreshadowings of Jesus's own submersion, not just in water, but in the judgment of God, as he willingly took the wrath of God upon himself.

Jesus's Baptism:

Jesus's baptism is often described as him submitting to the waters of God's judgment, specifically in his willingness to be baptized by John the Baptist. This is seen as a symbolic representation of his willingness to bear the sins of humanity and experience the wrath of God, paving the way for forgiveness and new life.

Connection to the Cross:

The dynamics of Jesus's baptism are seen as echoing the dynamics of his crucifixion. Both involve the righteous one submitting to a flood of judgment, descending to the place of sinners, only to rise in vindication from God. This emphasizes that baptism is not just a symbol of cleansing but also a symbolic participation in Christ's death and resurrection, where we are united with him in his suffering and victory.

Baptism and Repentance:

John the Baptist also spoke about a "baptism of fire," which could be interpreted as the immersion of unbelievers in God's fiery wrath. This highlights the importance of repentance and bearing fruit worthy of repentance, as those who do not repent may face God's judgment.

Baptism as a Public Profession:

Baptism is also seen as a public profession of faith and a commitment to follow Christ. It's a visible act that demonstrates our identification with Christ's death and resurrection, as well as our commitment to living a new life in obedience to him.

Google Search

Bump

 

[Hazelelponi]

The Bible is at first Sweet; then Bitter. If PSA seems Bitter, it's still Good for Us. If God Chastising his Son leaves a bitter taste in our mouths, and Chastisement of his Son is Biblical; this follows the Model Revelation 10:10 suggests..

It seems to me that less of the Reformed like PSA these days...

I disagree. The Word of God is very bitter indeed - to the dying. It tells you things you don't want to hear.

It's only sweet when you're invited in to understand it, then it stops being bitter, and becomes life itself.

If there's something bitter to us, it might not have been given us to understand yet, and perhaps we could pray for such an understanding.

God's impassibility is not being considered here, [some] men have turned God into a man (lacking immutability and impassiblity) and Jesus into a demi-god instead of fully God and fully man, plus there's a lack of understanding of the law and it's requirements in total etc

But Scripture is always bitter to the dying, sweet to the living

Proverbs 27:7: "One who is full loathes honey, but to one who is hungry everything bitter is sweet."

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I disagree. The Word of God is very bitter indeed—to the dying. It tells you things you don't want to hear. … Scripture is always bitter to the dying, sweet to the living

The way I see it, this or that scripture can be bitter to the living, too, because it reveals things that their flesh doesn't want to hear (Gal. 5:17). Scripture isn't always sweet to the living. But sanctification eventually reaches into that part of their life and their soul now rejoices to hear a word they formerly resisted. This is sort of the inverse of what ReverendRV said—the Bible is at first bitter, then sweet. So, it can be bitter to both the dying and the living, but that changes for the latter who experience sanctification. It remains bitter to the end for the former.