Transferred Wrath

[atpollard]

@Arial
OK, Let's start over as you request. The problem with addressing all the points asked of me is that I am being challenged as if I disagree with so many things that I fully agree with. Some posts act as if I deny that Jesus SUFFERED (I do not) or that GOD was in control (God is always in control). My issue is locating scripture support for one small detail that sometimes is claimed to be CENTRAL to PSA and you appear to claim is optional. If it is ESSENTIAL, then I disagree (because I cannot locate scripture that supports that specific detail) and if it is optional, then there is no disagreement to debate.

So let's start by establishing a definition of PSA. If we cannot agree what PSA claims, then we will continue to talk past one another. With your permission, I propose "Got Questions" as a starting point for a first draft of a proposed definition:

PSA
"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. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God."

Please acknowledge this definition or suggest an alternative.
As a reference, here is the full article:

What is the doctrine of penal substitution?​

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. 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.” So, penal substitution is the act of a person taking the punishment for someone else’s offenses. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the Substitute, and the punishment He took (at the cross) was ours, 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 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 of sin’s penalty.​

​

Penal substitution is clearly taught by the Bible. In fact, much of what God did prior to Jesus’ ministry was to foreshadow this concept and present it as the purpose of the Messiah. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin. In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement in Exodus 29:41–42. The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4–6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5) is a direct reference to penal substitution.​

​

During and after Jesus’ ministry, penal substitution is further clarified. Jesus claims to be the “good shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep in John 10:10. Paul, in Romans 3:25–26, explains that we have the righteousness of Christ because of the sacrifice of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he says that the sinless Christ took on our sins. Hebrews 9:26 says that our sins were removed by the sacrifice of Christ. First Peter 3:18 plainly teaches that the righteous was substituted for the unrighteous.​

​

There are quite a few different theories about how, exactly, Christ’s sacrifice frees us from the penalty of sin. Penal substitution is the most logically and biblically sound view.​

 

[Carbon]

As @ReverendRV pointed out God's wrath as eternal judgment is reserved for the last say---became return of Christ. There will be people facitn that wrath. If that wrath is poured out on Jesus on the cross, there would be no one facing that wrath.

You seem to make it sound like God had only so much wrath and had to make sure He didn't use up all His wrath on Jesus. Jesus took the Father's wrath in his bride's place. God does not have only so much wrath; God hates sin, always hated sin, and will always hate sin, and His wrath will burn against sin.

It is not wrath that is being poured out on Christ on the cross, it is judgement of sin and sins for his people (those he is giving to Christ and for whom Christ died).

Then what was Jesus talking about? And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. Matt 26:39
He has taken on our sin (imputation), it has been judged (judgment), and the Father's wrath is poured out on him.

The penalty for sin is death.

Yes, and Jesus was dead and buried.

Our sins were laid on him, he died the death of a criminal, which he wasn't and we are, and he went to the grave.

Amen

This is what was poured out on him, the ransom he paid for us. It was our sins meeting God's justice against sin.

What @atpollard is leaving out of the disucssin, other than to claim that it has nothing to do with the atonement, is one complete attribute of God. His attriubute of being Just. In which case----where then is justification?

 

[atpollard]

I did as you asked, and only one person @Carbon even mentioned God's wrath being transferred to Jesus.

FYI: from Page 1:

the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord is the Day Jesus Christ died. Saint Peter teaches us it was Christ’s Judgment Day. Saint Paul teaches this Judgment Day is coming again…

What you need is an Alternative Judgment Day where God’s Wrath can be revealed…

but volunteered to pay the Penalty for the Sins of every new Believer; by being a Substitute for them, on a Substitute Day of Judgment and Wrath.

Are you not convinced that the Day of Christ’s Crucifixion is the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord’s Judgment?

This brings me back to my Thread about the Sword of the Spirit not being sharp enough to work on Believers; when it should. You should believe as Saint Peter said, 'This is what Joel said about [Christ's Crucifixion], it was the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord's Wrath'...

Our JUDGEMENT DAY was the day Christ was crucified
God's wrath was revealed on Judgement day
Jesus was a substitute for us ... a substitute for our Wrath
[How is this not a transfer of wrath (anger)?]

So, did the human nature of Christ ever face God's "wrath" (disfavor)?
“Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’”

Carries an implied "yes" not an implied "no"
[God's wrath (disfavor) fell on Jesus.]
At least he presented a scripture to support this. I acknowledge it MAY indicate God forsook Jesus ... on the other hand, Jesus may have been pointing listeners to Psalm 22 - via direct quote of the opening - and used few words since he was dying.]

As far as the Lord Jesus is concerned, he had never sinned, so his physical body would not naturally have died at all. The reason that he did, is to bear our iniquities and the punishment due for them.

As far as God pouring out his anger on Jesus is concerned, we know that God is angry with sin; and Jesus was made sin for us.

Jesus bore the our punishment ("our iniquities and the punishment due for them").
God poured God's anger on Jesus.
[How is this not a transfer of wrath (anger)?]

 

[Arial]

Our JUDGEMENT DAY was the day Christ was crucified
God's wrath was revealed on Judgement day
Jesus was a substitute for us ... a substitute for our Wrath
[How is this not a transfer of wrath (anger)?]

If that is what @ReverendRV said, and if he means it in the way you are taking it, then I stand corrected that no one implied God's wrath is transferred to man. But he did not exactly say that, and I do not know if that is what he meant. Those few statements are taken from a greater context, which I did not read, and will not, as I prefer dealing person to person in what is going on in a thread, rather than some previously written whatever. Just from the portion that you have quoted I think the substitution is applied in the wrong place, as a substitution day.

ANd I do not believe that the day Christ was crucified was our judgement day, but rather the day Jesus conquered our enemies, sin and death, so that the believer will not face the wrath of God on the great and terrible day of the Lord---when he returns. In that way he substituted himself for us. God's wrath is not against Christ, ever, it is against the enemy who brings sin and death. It is sin that must be dealt with, and the sins of his people. No longer are they merely covered over as in the OT, and that temporary, they are destroyed as to their power over the believer to condemn (now) and the destroyer himself will ultimately be destroyed. I do not believe the day he was crucified was a substitute Day of the Lord.

Carries an implied "yes" not an implied "no"
[God's wrath (disfavor) fell on Jesus.]
At least he presented a scripture to support this. I acknowledge it MAY indicate God forsook Jesus ... on the other hand, Jesus may have been pointing listeners to Psalm 22 - via direct quote of the opening - and used few words since he was dying.]

What the poster meant must be explained by the one who said it. Not you or me. I took it as an implied "no." A rhetorical question. Why? Because to say that God's favor ever left Jesus is to make a statement of mutability in God. Of an ebbing and flowing of his attributes. In any case, @fastfredy0 did not make a statement of PCA meaning God's wrath was transferred to Jesus. Only he can clarify if that is what he is saying, but to read that into his question may be putting words in his mouth.

Jesus bore the our punishment ("our iniquities and the punishment due for them").
God poured God's anger on Jesus.
[How is this not a transfer of wrath (anger)?]

How is it automatically a "transfer of God's wrath to Jesus"? Scripture does say that God laid our sin upon him. You read that into it and since @David1701 is disagreeing with your position of no PCA, and your disagreeing with PCA is based on that one word, "transferring" his wrath to Jesus, it isn't likely that he is actually saying what you read him as saying. But again, only he can answer that question. In your arguments you have left out an entire attribute of God, saying it has nothing to do with the atonement. Just.

 

[fastfredy0]

It appears that I am alone in my concern over the lack of scripture that actually teaches what so many merely assume that scripture teaches.

I am sympathetic to your ideas. When I studied the theories of atonement the author I read basically said all the theories had issues so, as with eschatology, I decided to not take a strong opinion on any theory.

Criticism of PSA from ChatGPT

1. Portrays God as Violent or Vengeful​

• Critics argue that PSA makes God seem like an angry judge who needs to punish someone — and Jesus steps in to take the hit.
• This can be seen as promoting a theology of divine child abuse (a phrase famously used by theologian Steve Chalke).

2. Justice Appears Inverted​

• Ethical objection: Punishing an innocent person (Jesus) instead of the guilty (us) seems morally wrong, even if it's voluntary.
• It challenges the idea of true justice — why would a loving and just God punish the innocent?

Too Legalistic or Transactional​

• PSA frames salvation in legal terms: crime, penalty, substitution.
• Critics argue this reduces the relational, mystical, or transformative aspects of salvation, turning it into a cold legal transaction.

---

Neglects Resurrection and Broader Gospel Themes​

• PSA tends to focus heavily on the crucifixion as punishment, often underplaying:
  
  • The resurrection as victory over death
  • The kingdom of God as a present reality
  • The call to transformation, justice, and discipleship

Inconsistent with God's Mercy and Forgiveness

• If God can only forgive after punishing someone, critics ask: is that true forgiveness?
• Why not just forgive without demanding a substitute be punished?

 

[Arial]

You seem to make it sound like God had only so much wrath and had to make sure He didn't use up all His wrath on Jesus. Jesus took the Father's wrath in his bride's place. God does not have only so much wrath; God hates sin, always hated sin, and will always hate sin, and His wrath will burn against sin.

Well, that is not what I meant.

Then what was Jesus talking about? And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. Matt 26:39
He has taken on our sin (imputation), it has been judged (judgment), and the Father's wrath is poured out on him.

"Poured out on him" is not the same thing as being "transferred" to him. That is my point now, and has been my point since the beginning.

Yes, and Jesus was dead and buried.

Exactly.

 

[Carbon]

Well, that is not what I meant.

"Poured out on him" is not the same thing as being "transferred" to him. That is my point now, and has been my point since the beginning.

agreed

Exactly.

 

[Carbon]

"Poured out on him" is not the same thing as being "transferred" to him. That is my point now, and has been my point since the beginning.

Agreed. And when they use words like transferred it makes it seem like the wrath is now gone "after it has been transferred to Christ". But since there will still be sinners at judgment, then there is a problem since the wrath is gone, what will God do about it? So, the Father couldn't transfer His wrath to Christ; that would also be cosmic child abuse.

How ridiculous.

 

[Arial]

I am sympathetic to your ideas. When I studied the theories of atonement the author I read basically said all the theories had issues so, as with eschatology, I decided to not take a strong opinion on any theory.

Criticism of PSA from ChatGPT

1. Portrays God as Violent or Vengeful​

• Critics argue that PSA makes God seem like an angry judge who needs to punish someone — and Jesus steps in to take the hit.
• This can be seen as promoting a theology of divine child abuse (a phrase famously used by theologian Steve Chalke).

2. Justice Appears Inverted​

• Ethical objection: Punishing an innocent person (Jesus) instead of the guilty (us) seems morally wrong, even if it's voluntary.
• It challenges the idea of true justice — why would a loving and just God punish the innocent?

Too Legalistic or Transactional​

• PSA frames salvation in legal terms: crime, penalty, substitution.
• Critics argue this reduces the relational, mystical, or transformative aspects of salvation, turning it into a cold legal transaction.

---

Neglects Resurrection and Broader Gospel Themes​

• PSA tends to focus heavily on the crucifixion as punishment, often underplaying:
  • The resurrection as victory over death
  • The kingdom of God as a present reality
  • The call to transformation, justice, and discipleship

Inconsistent with God's Mercy and Forgiveness

• If God can only forgive after punishing someone, critics ask: is that true forgiveness?
• Why not just forgive without demanding a substitute be punished?

Since PSA does none of those things, the argument against it is meaningless. Their arguments are not biblically based, but are mere perceptions and emotions.

 

[Carbon]

Since PSA does none of those things, the argument against it is meaningless. Their arguments are not biblically based, but are mere perceptions and emotions.

Amen!

 

[Arial]

PSA
"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. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God."

I agree. And I agree with the full posted statement from Got Questions. No where in there does it say God's wrath is transferred to Jesus. Next?

 

[atpollard]

Next?

Point of clarification ... are you ready to move on to the next topic, or are you asking for my next post in the dialog?

[I could be happy with either.]

 

[Arial]

Point of clarification ... are you ready to move on to the next topic, or are you asking for my next post in the dialog?

[I could be happy with either.]

Next post in dialog. I would like a definition of "transferred" as it is being used by opponents of PSA, and that "wrath" is being transferred. Since it is not used in the definition of PSA it must be being used for a specific reason and applying it as an objection to PSA. Maybe do that first, but not only, as your next response.

 

[civic]

These renown Calvinist declare what PSA really teaches below. No one here knows the doctrine of PSA better than these men.

Calvinists teach the Father KILLED the Son so I will quote a few famous ones for you proving what Calvinists actually believe and teach.

MacArthur in the gospel according to God says :

We must remember that sin did not kill Jesus; God did. The suffering servants death was nothing less than a punishment administered by God for the sins committed by others.

Piper says in the passion of the Christ :

The ultimate question to who killed Jesus is God did. Its a staggering thought . Jesus was His Son.

Grudem in his Systematic Theology :

As Jesus bore the guilt of our sin alone,God the Father, the Almighty Creator, the Lord of the universe, poured out on Jesus the fury of his wrath: Jesus became the object of the intense hatred of sin and vengeance against sin which God had patiently stored up since the beginning of the world.

Calvin says in his commentary on Gal 3:13 :

"He could not cease to be the object of his Father’s love, and yet he endured his wrath. For how could he reconcile the Father to us, if he had incurred his hatred and displeasure? We conclude, that he “did always those things that pleased” (John 8:29) his Father. Again, how would he have freed us from the wrath of God, if he had not transferred it from us to himself? Thus, “he was wounded for our transgressions,” (Isaiah 53:5,) and had to deal with God as an angry judge."

 

[Hazelelponi]

There's a couple thoughts on this that I have maybe someone could answer.

What is hatred? I have always said love and hate are covenantal positions before God, at least between God and man... In keeping with Malachi 1:2-3 and Romans 9:13 I would disagree with using hatred because Jesus can never be outside of the Godhead.

How is God's wrath defined? If God poured out His wrath for our sin upon Jesus, upon the cross, as indicated in Scripture when Jesus cried out "Why have You forsaken Me?” is most likely to express Christ's bearing of the covenant curses from Deuteronomy 28:15-68

^^ hyperlinked the Covenant curses.

This cannot be transferred, it can only be poured out. He bore what we (the Israel of God) deserved for sin.

Are we all on the same page here? Are my definitions incorrect?

 

[atpollard]

Next post in dialog.

Your wish is my command.

I would like a definition of "transferred" as it is being used by opponents of PSA,

Sure, Since I am probably not qualified to speak for ALL opponents of PSA, I will speak for myself (since I do use the term):

When I say "transferred" I mean it in the past tense of the common definition of the English word "transfer" which is described by Merriam-Webster as:

transfer (transitive verb)
1a: to convey from one person, place, or situation to another
1b: to cause to pass from one to another

With respect to PSA, it is the alleged TRANSFER from US to JESUS of

• sin
• guilt
• wrath (anger) of God
• punishment of God

So we are speaking of [I am not claiming all of these are false, at this point I am just listing things that PSA advocates have at one point or another claimed HAVE been transferred as part of your request to define "transfer"]

• our sin transferred (conveyed or passed) to Jesus
• our guilt transferred (conveyed or passed) to Jesus
• God's wrath (to be defined next) transferred (conveyed or passed) from us to Jesus
• our punishment transferred (conveyed or passed) to Jesus

and that "wrath" is being transferred.

What is WRATH? [again, I am probably not qualified to speak for ALL opponents of PSA, I will speak for myself]

Start with the BIBLE ...

• Exodus 32:10 [ESV] "Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you."
• [H639] ʼaph, af; from H599; properly, the nose or nostril; hence, the face, and occasionally a person; also (from the rapid breathing in passion) ire:—anger(-gry), before, countenance, face, forebearing, forehead, (long-) suffering, nose, nostril, snout, × worthy, wrath.
• Romans 2:5 [ESV] "But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed."
• [G3709] ὀργή orgḗ, or-gay'; from G3713; properly, desire (as a reaching forth or excitement of the mind), i.e. (by analogy), violent passion (ire, or (justifiable) abhorrence); by implication punishment:—anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath.

described by Merriam-Webster as:

wrath (noun)
1: strong vengeful anger or indignation
2: retributory punishment for an offense or a crime

So when I use the term WRATH, I am describing God's "vengeful anger" or "retributory punishment for an offense or a crime" as depicted by a person flaring their nostril in anger or a violent passion ... which is how the BIBLE defines the term.

As a starting point ...

• God is angry at sin [Deuteronomy 9:18, 1 Kings 16:2, Jeremiah 18:23]
• God abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man [Psalm 5:6]
• God is capable of wrath [Exodus 32:10-11, 1 Samuel 28:18, 2 Kings 3:27]

For PSA, the questions become:

• God's wrath against our sin?
• God's wrath against us?
• God's wrath against Jesus?
• [Do they exists and what happened to them?]

I am not attempting to ASK or ANSWER anything in this post. You have asked for and I have attempted to provide DEFINITIONS of terms and approximations of how these terms might apply to PSA.


Has this met your request?

 

[Arial]

We must remember that sin did not kill Jesus; God did. The suffering servants death was nothing less than a punishment administered by God for the sins committed by others.

Though I disagree with the phrasing that God killed Jesus, since he did not kill him but willed that he be killed by evil men; I do agree that sin did not kill Jesus---- as in order for sin to kill him it would have to be his sin and he had none. Our sin was laid on him, and he died for our sin as our substitute. The OP title is "Transferred wrath". What does this have to do with that?

The ultimate question to who killed Jesus is God did. Its a staggering thought . Jesus was His Son.

Again, poor phrasing or a distorted way of looking at it. Neither of these people believe that God struck Jesus down himself. WHich is what "killed him" implies, and exactly why you pick these particular quotes, I am guessing.

As Jesus bore the guilt of our sin alone,God the Father, the Almighty Creator, the Lord of the universe, poured out on Jesus the fury of his wrath: Jesus became the object of the intense hatred of sin and vengeance against sin which God had patiently stored up since the beginning of the world.

I do not know what Grudem was thinking when he wrote that, and neither do you. At face value, I disagree. Not all those who agree with PSA believe exactly the same thing. So posting the view of a select few, does nothing for the cause. Most of us here think more clearly than that.

"He could not cease to be the object of his Father’s love, and yet he endured his wrath. For how could he reconcile the Father to us, if he had incurred his hatred and displeasure? We conclude, that he “did always those things that pleased” (John 8:29) his Father. Again, how would he have freed us from the wrath of God, if he had not transferred it from us to himself? Thus, “he was wounded for our transgressions,” (Isaiah 53:5,) and had to deal with God as an angry judge."

Again, I would not word it in that way, we have no idea from a singular quote pulled out of a context, what came before or after, and it does not say that God's wrath was transferred to Jesus. To consider that is the only thing it could be saying, is to judge a book by its cover and have an emotional perception.

So until we have the definition of "transfer wrath" from the one who is using it, and why that particular phrasing is used to tear down the historical view of the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross, it is just keeping the water muddy.

 

[atpollard]

Since PSA does none of those things

Amen!

Wait a minute, TIME OUT!

Punishing an innocent person (Jesus) instead of the guilty (us)

Which of these are you seriously NOT claiming:

• JESUS was innocent,
• We were guilty
• Jesus was Punished

Which of those is not part of PSA?
[Penal means PUNISHED and Substitution means IN PLACE OF, so what IS your explanation of Atonement? ]

 

[Carbon]

PSA
"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. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God."

It actually has nothing to do with acceptance.

 

[atpollard]

It actually has nothing to do with acceptance.

Not that I am prepared to argue that point, but what are the odds of being MORE CALVINIST than "Got Questions"?