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.​

 

[atpollard]

What I was asking was why do the opponents say it is transferred wrath, rather than for example, poured out on him wrath.

God pours out his wrath on those that do evil. Did Jesus do evil? No, then God did not pour out Divine wrath that Jesus deserved.

Do our sins deserve wrath? (assuming they are not FORGIVEN) yes. Does God pour his wrath on US? No. Does God pour the wrath for our sins (our wrath) on Jesus? [some seem to say so, even if YOU deny that any do]. Therefore, WRATH has been transferred from being poured out on US to being poured out on JESUS. The important part is not that God POURED his wrath, the important part is that God did not pour his wrath on US but poured it on JESUS instead (allegedly transferred).

Do you see the difference?

Do YOU see the difference?

 

[atpollard]

But Jesus was standing as a substitute for us.

Explain the difference between “standing in as a substitute” and “transfer” (to convey or pass from one person to another).

 

[atpollard]

The Father, of course.

Peter (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) as recorded by Luke in the book of Acts … disagrees.
(as I quoted and you ignored)

 

[atpollard]

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

I guess the answer is “No, we are not reasoning together.”

Then in the words of Bartles and James … “Thank you for your support.”

 

[fastfredy0]

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

Why is it interesting?
Aside: I don't claim to have a studied opinion as to how GotQuestions leans in regard to Calvinism. It's just my opinion as I have used it and do have anecdotal evidence from what I read to support my opinion. Occasionally, I've read GotQuestion answers that seem to contradict other Gotquestion answers.

 

[fastfredy0]

Explain the difference between “standing in as a substitute” and “transfer” (to convey or pass from one person to another).

Maybe the word to be used should be impute? Impute: represent (something, especially something undesirable) as being done, caused, or possessed by someone; attribute.

...my 2 cents again...that's 4 cents so far

 

[ReverendRV]

@atpollard
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?]

It is a Transfer of God's Wrath for us to Jesus; as you requested...

 

[makesends]

Restricting to the NT (because we are focusing on the saints), here are verses that speak of us and WRATH:

• [Jhn 3:36 ESV] 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.
• [Rom 5:9 ESV] 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
• [Eph 2:3 ESV] 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
• [1Th 1:10 ESV] 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
• [1Th 5:9 ESV] 9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Note CAREFULLY, that in all of these cases, we are NOT under wrath, we are SAVED from wrath, we WERE a children of wrath, we are DELIVERED from wrath and we are NOT DESTINED for wrath.

NOWHERE does it speak of our wrath TRANSFERRED to another.

I'm having a bit of trouble following your thinking. Why are you bringing up the fact that we (the saved) are not recipients of God's wrath? So what? You yourself have quoted below:

[Rom 5:9 ESV] 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

If we are saved by Christ from God's wrath, it is implied that we 'would have been' recipients of the wrath of God, had God not 'transferred' it to Christ. Where is the problem?

 

[makesends]

God pours out his wrath on those that do evil. Did Jesus do evil? No, then God did not pour out Divine wrath that Jesus deserved.

Sorry, man. That's some pretty lousy logic. The fact that God pours out his wrath on those that do evil does not mean that Jesus did not take our place and receive God's wrath for the evil we did.

 

[Arial]

Explain the difference between “standing in as a substitute” and “transfer” (to convey or pass from one person to another).

Instead of actually addressing my post in a debate method and showing any fallacy that may be in it, you simply ask me to explain something else?

A substitute is one who provides what is necessary to (in this case) remove the power of sin to condemn, and for the sins to meet what is necessary to be removed. The justice of God against sin. Which is death. JESUS died in our place. Having them transferred would actually convey our sins TO him. They would be in him as his sins.

Jesus became our ransom. He paid with his body and his perfect righteousness, to set us free.

 

[Carbon]

Carbon wrote: After reading Isaiah 53. Would you show me where in the bible it teaches "Christ took . . . someone else's wrath besides the Father's on his shoulders?"

Or will you deny there is any wrath in Isaiah 53?

You totally ignored my questions above?

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

Okay.

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.

And your point?
It was held in great respect that he was punished by God. That's the way it was seen. We regarded it as he suffered all this because of his own sins. It didn't occur that he would be suffering all this for the sins of others.
The fact that the Jews attempted to prove that Jesus was a blasphemer and deserved to die shows the fulfillment of this and the estimate which they formed of him
Imagine if they knew the truth and said so? So, I'm not sure what you're debating here?

Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Cor 2:8.

This is an opinion of men rather than a pronouncement from God.

As said. As shown.

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.

As said. As shown.

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.

So then it's up to you to define what crush means?

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.

I'm sorry, brother, but personally, I think you bought into some lies and have been influenced by some people who really do not know the gospel.
In the NASB it reads:
But the Lord desired
To crush Him, Isaiah 53:10.

Now, considering the word crush, and the Lord's desire to crush him. Now, Jesus, the Son of God utterly clean of all fault, pure and holy, with no blemish, in perfect communion with the Father. The Father destroyed the force and penalty of sin when the curse of sin was transferred through imputation unto Christ's flesh. Yes, the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all, Isaiah 53:6. And to further the crushing force, - And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabaktanei?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Matthew 27:46. Not only was he insulted, his beard pulled out, punched, and spit on, flogged, given a crown of thorns, nailed to a cross, but the Father also turned from him. Let me ask you, how much more should he have gone through before you would define it as crushed?

Who killed Jesus?

God the Father.

• 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?

Are you looking for an independent verse or passage that says: This was done by God's wrath?

To be continued

 

[Dave]

Greetings Arial,

This isn’t my first rodeo on PSA and the WRATH of God, so you will forgive me if I enter with little expectation of “communication” (talking TO each other) and with more trepidation of talking PAST each other.

First, a disclaimer: I believe everything the Bible EXPLICITLY states that Jesus did and was, so all attempts to quote “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3) and similar verses as a “gotcha” proof the PSA is true and I am wrong will be met with a [sigh] and “Yup, I believe that, too.” That is not my complaint with PSA as it is typically presented.

FROM THE DESCRIPTION OF THIS FORUM:
“Christ took our sins and the sins of the whole world as well as the Father's wrath on his shoulders, and he has drowned them both in himself so that we are thereby reconciled to God and become completely righteous. Martin Luther”

Taking this as a working definition of PSA (we need to start somewhere and Christ Centered Community chose this quote to DEFINE “Atonement” for purposes of discussion), here is the challenge that was presented to me and I was confident that I could succeed in passing:

• Show me where in the BIBLE it teaches “Christ took … the Father's wrath on his shoulders”.

So therein is my problem. I searched to prove the definition Luther and CCC provided TRUE according to the challenge provided by another Christian to show where that is taught in Scripture. In my search, I found scripture offered a very different picture of God and the difference between WRATH and FORGIVENESS to the “pound of flesh to balance the scale of Divine Justice” model that I had been taught. Being “SOLA SCRIPTURA” to the core, I chose to reject the teaching of great theologians for the “Norma normans non normata” (the rule of rules that itself, answers to no higher rule”) … I believed Scripture.

The very specific point, succinctly put, is the TRANSFER of WRATH. I cannot find Biblical support for the theological model of God transferring DIVINE wrath from us (“the punishment we deserve” is how I typically heard it stated) to Jesus Christ (“Jesus took God’s punishment in our place” is how I typically heard it stated) so that God’s Justice could be satisfied (“Justice demands that payment be made for the sin to allow Mercy to forgive” … the divine equivalent of God demands his pound of flesh to satisfy his wrath before God is free to show mercy.). I have no objection to this on any grounds that it is “mean” or “unfair”. It is not God’s RIGHT to create such an atonement plan that I object to. I simply think that if God DID create such an atonement plan, that God would probably have mentioned it in His 66 books of God- breathed scripture. The fact that scripture does not teach about transferred wrath (only transferred sin) suggests that WRATH is not transferred. The fact that scripture actually teaches OTHER THINGS about WRATH reinforces that belief.

So to try and speak directly to your specific questions:

Q. Does it have to be wrath poured out of Christ in order to be penal substitution?

• No. However it is the concept of TRANSFERRED WRATH that I disagree with, so it is the “God’s wrath, directed at the saints, transferred to and inflicted on Christ, by God” that I call into question. If you can reject that and still call it PSA, then you have my agreement.

Q. And wouldn't the statement "wrath poured on the Son" first need to be explained by the one who is using that terminology?

• Yes. Unfortunately, everyone will have a different definition. Here at CCC, we have a quote from Luther as a starting point. For me, I have now defined my objection. For TRUTH, we have SCRIPTURE to define what God claims God did.

I just don't have the time to read everything, but, isn't wrath and judgment synonymous? Are we looking for the magic word, like Trinity, or the idea behind it? Sometimes chasing a word instead of an idea is a red herring. That's all I have.

Dave

 

[Carbon]

So who says Jesus death was about WRATH?

I give up, who? Suddenly, I'm not sure what you are debating?

Hmmm, "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?

What if Isaiah 53 needs to be changed? Why not make it easier and just join a cult?

 

[Carbon]

I just don't have the time to read everything, but, isn't wrath and judgment synonymous? Are we looking for the magic word, like Trinity, or the idea behind it? Sometimes chasing a word instead of an idea is a red herring. That's all I have.

Dave

Exactly

 

[Carbon]

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.

Your right.