Transferred Wrath

[Arial]

Truncated below to fit under 10,000 words

This kind of thinking seems to be more visible to me lately, from different people posting —to the point I'm beginning to wonder if *I'm* the common denominator

And I'm still at a loss as to how to describe it. It is a wooden, maybe even superstitious, mechanical logic in hermeneutics, that takes a word and studies it as opposed to studying its meaning. —No, that's not quite it either. —...that studies a word and finds no direct connotation so concludes there is no connotation(?) (By way of example of your thinking here: Arguing monergism/synergism, @Eternally-Grateful says that according to the definition given for synergism a synergist cannot be saved. No matter how I try, I can't get it through to him that what a person thinks is not what saves him; he agrees with me about that a person's thinking cannot save him, but still doesn't see how a synergist can be saved. I gave up.)

You say, "Notice " Gods Wrath " it doesn’t fall on Christ but Jesus protects believes from Gods wrath". In the passages you quote you don't see 'wrath' said to fall on Christ—therefore (in your mind) it doesn't fall on Christ. Yet you show nowhere that God's wrath has been mitigated or undone, but only diverted at best.

God's wrath and God's justice are almost synonymous along with his purity, infinity and omnipotence, and resulting in his grace—that is, all are actions within his works. None of it is set aside, but, rather, completed. He does not fail to completely undo the wages of the sin of the elect. The sin is seen no different just because the payer has been changed. The wages must be payed in full.

One of the biggest things against PSA that I found in reading on-line about it, is that justice part. Opponents of PSA use the idea of justice being met as a main reason to accuse PSA of presenting God as emotionally angry and so he exacts his pound of flesh on Jesus in order to satisfy his anger. Or some such thing. What they do is take the attribute of just that belongs to God, completely out of the atonement. They do not think it belongs there.

But for some reason, the opponents to PSA, are not going to discuss it, but hang tight to a bickering over the definition of "transferr" and "wrath". Something that was dealt with pages back.

 

[Dave]

The little trick is, if they say it like that, then they can ask a person to show them where the Bible says God's wrath is transferred to Jesus. And of course the Bible does not say that. King of like a Unitarian asking where the Bible says God is triune.

Cheap and deliberately deceptive method by whoever started it and pulled the wool over the eyes of some, with the deception.

I call that liberal argumentation.

 

[Carbon]

Why are you no longer defending the position you put forth?

Hopefully, he is reconsidering his beliefs on this doctrine

 

[makesends]

One of the biggest things against PSA that I found in reading on-line about it, is that justice part. Opponents of PSA use the idea of justice being met as a main reason to accuse PSA of presenting God as emotionally angry and so he exacts his pound of flesh on Jesus in order to satisfy his anger. Or some such thing. What they do is take the attribute of just that belongs to God, completely out of the atonement. They do not think it belongs there.

But for some reason, the opponents to PSA, are not going to discuss it, but hang tight to a bickering over the definition of "transferr" and "wrath". Something that was dealt with pages back.

Yes, then they get angry back at me for pointing out that God (as in the parable of the workers in the field) has every right to do as he pleases and still be considered just —and in fact, generous with his 'money'— in doing what he does. They are like, "Well, of course! Are you accusing me of saying otherwise?" And I say, "Ok, let's look at Jonah vs the Useless Servant parable: the worthless servant says, "I knew you were a hard man!" while Jonah —though very wrong in his rebellion to God and his hatred for Ninevah— truly knew God, and said, "I knew this would happen! I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity."

Lol, at that, they get even more outraged —"Are you saying I don't think God is gracious and compassionate? It is endemic to my theology that God is abounding in love!" And I say, "The only love you consider God is capable of, is YOUR notion of love. You describe my assertions, both biblical and logical, about God, to describe the 'hard man' and worse—a monster. You think that the attribute of Love overrides all others, including Truth." And as expected, the conversation falls apart from there.

 

[atpollard]

Why are you no longer defending the position you put forth?

From the OP ...

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.

... we have long since reached and passed the point I feared. I am suffering accusations that range up to and including endangering the faith of others. There is no "conversation" (back and forth communication of ideas) but merely accusation, attack and defense. That is neither edifying, nor Christ like (for me or from me).

So I have "unwatched" the topic and only get e-mail notifications of direct comments on my posts (like the one you made).
I never sought DEBATE and DEFENSE, I wanted honest conversation about EXACTLY what scripture stated and what it did not state. I got another THEOLOGY argument (so I left).

 

[atpollard]

Hopefully, he is reconsidering his beliefs on this doctrine

Yes, I have decided to embrace the teachings discovered in 1600 and reject Sola Scriptura ... I may now work my way towards becoming Greek Orthodox.

 

[Carbon]

From the OP ...

... we have long since reached and passed the point I feared. I am suffering accusations that range up to and including endangering the faith of others. There is no "conversation" (back and forth communication of ideas) but merely accusation, attack and defense. That is neither edifying, nor Christ like (for me or from me).

So I have "unwatched" the topic and only get e-mail notifications of direct comments on my posts (like the one you made).
I never sought DEBATE and DEFENSE, I wanted honest conversation about EXACTLY what scripture stated and what it did not state. I got another THEOLOGY argument (so I left).

I thought you would have known to stand up for the truth, no matter what the cost. To say you are suffering accusations up to and including endangering the faith of others is just an excuse. No one is personally attacking you, just your doctrine. And isn't that what you are supposed to defend?
Consider the remarks from the opponents of PSA, that's okay? Or your post 186.

Either defend your doctrine by standing up for what you believe is the truth, or why post at all?

 

[Arial]

From the OP ...

... we have long since reached and passed the point I feared. I am suffering accusations that range up to and including endangering the faith of others. There is no "conversation" (back and forth communication of ideas) but merely accusation, attack and defense. That is neither edifying, nor Christ like (for me or from me).

So I have "unwatched" the topic and only get e-mail notifications of direct comments on my posts (like the one you made).
I never sought DEBATE and DEFENSE, I wanted honest conversation about EXACTLY what scripture stated and what it did not state. I got another THEOLOGY argument (so I left).

Having a conversation is a two way street. I have not been talking past you and have not made any accusations. And when two people in the conversation are on opposite sides it is going to be a debate between points made. You, even though I suggested we start the conversation over so that what I was saying was not simply shoved to the back shelf, well, it is still shoved to the back shelf. A conversation is not all about what only one party says.

 

[Carbon]

Having a conversation is a two way street. I have not been talking past you and have not made any accusations. And when two people in the conversation are on opposite sides it is going to be a debate between points made. You, even though I suggested we start the conversation over so that what I was saying was not simply shoved to the back shelf, well, it is still shoved to the back shelf. A conversation is not all about what only one party says.

Exactly!

 

[Arial]

I call that liberal argumentation.

Good phrase.

 

[Carbon]

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.

After thinking things over, and hopefully reconsidering this doctrine, perhaps you would like to start another thread on PSA, this time with a totally different name? Something more along the lines of the doctrine? Terminology that believers use?

 

[makesends]

Their very pious and God honoring sounding version is the “FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT” to what I stated … “God demands his pound of flesh to satisfy his wrath before he is free to show mercy”.

You are wrong. It is only in a human mindset that the one must be satisfied BEFORE the other can be done. You no doubt consider it a logical sequence, but it is not.

God is free to show mercy as he pleases. It does not need to wait for anything. As a matter of fact, the way he shows his mercy is by removing his wrath, and that, by placing it on his Son. The two need not be arranged to be one the effect of the other. God is all his attributes, not one over the others.

 

[John Bauer]

It is unfortunate that atpollard is no longer engaging in the debate he requested because, as a family man (with two small children) who works for a living, it takes me a little longer than most to finish writing a post. And this one was interrupted by yet another hospital visit, this time for my youngest with a nasty head injury.

Alas, I will post it anyway for at least the reader's information and edification. If, by the grace and providence of God, atpollard chooses to engage me, I would be very pleased.

That said, here it is. (I had to split it into two because it was over 10,000 characters. What a stupid limit.)

PART 1:​

Here is the challenge that was presented to me and I was confident that I could succeed in passing:

• 1. Show me where the Bible teaches that Christ took the Father's wrath upon [himself].

Penal substitutionary atonement is a theological doctrine that explains the meaning and purpose of the cross of Christ, whereby

1. he bore the punishment for sin (penal)
   
   ​
2. in the place of us believers (substitutionary),
   
   ​
3. satisfying divine justice and cleansing us of the guilt and stain of sin, thereby reconciling us and God (atonement).

If we believe these three elements are true, then we believe the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement.

Where do we see this doctrine being affirmed in scripture? One of the more fundamental, obvious, and familiar texts is in Isaiah:

Isaiah 53:5-6, 10-11 He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, [he was] crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed. All of us had wandered off like sheep; each of us had strayed off on his own path, but the LORD caused the sin of all of us to attack him. … The LORD desired to crush him and cause him to suffer, but once restitution is made he will see descendants and enjoy long life and the LORD's purpose will be accomplished through him. Having suffered, he will reflect on his work and be satisfied when he understands what has been accomplished. "My servant will acquit many, for he carried their sins."
​

Observe that the Servant was not only "crushed because of our sins" which he "carried" or bore (v. 5), but it was God who was "pleased" or "desired to crush him and cause him to suffer" (v. 10). Note the penal substitutionary language being used in this passage. The Servant is afflicted not for his own sins but for ours, and God himself is the one who crushed him (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:28; John 10:18). In the Reformed tradition, all penal substitutionary aspects of the atoning sacrifice—Christ absorbing the wrath, judgment, and penalty due for sin—are realized by God's own sovereign will. The crushing of the Servant is not an incidental consequence of human wickedness but the divinely chosen means of accomplishing redemption.

And this righteous penalty for sin is substitutionary: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—because it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’" (Gal 3:13; cf. 2 Cor 5:21). To be cursed in a biblical context is to be under the judicial wrath of God. This language of curse-bearing directly corresponds to the cup metaphor, which we will visit in a moment. Both communicate judgment—not mere suffering or martyrdom but divine wrath poured out for sin. Christ bore the full brunt of the covenant curses in our place, not symbolically but judicially. God was pleased to crush him (to shatter or break into pieces), not out of malice but in the name of redemptive justice, which is necessarily substitutionary because Christ was without sin—until God made him to be sin for us. And the reason it pleased him to do so is because the suffering Servant's work satisfied divine justice and secured redemption for the elect. God was pleased with the outcome of this suffering, not with the suffering for its own sake. At the cross of Christ, divine love and wrath met not in conflict but in harmony.

According to the New English Translation on verse 6 (all emphases mine), which the NIV and ESV unfortunately translate as "has laid on him the iniquity of us all":

Elsewhere the Hiphil of פָגַע means to intercede verbally (e.g., Jer 15:11; 36:25) or to intervene militarily (e.g., Isa 59:16), but neither nuance fits here. Apparently, here the Hiphil is the causative of the normal Qal meaning, which is to encounter, to meet, to touch. The Qal sometimes refers to a hostile encounter or attack; when used in this way, the object is normally introduced by the preposition -בְּ (e.g., Josh 2:16; Jdg 8:21; 15:12; etc.), as here where the causative Hiphil has a double object—God makes ‘sin’ attack ‘him.’ … In their sin, the group was like sheep who had wandered from God's path. They were vulnerable to attack; the guilt of their sin was ready to attack and destroy them. But then the Servant stepped in and took the full force of the attack.

Just a side note on verse 10: I thought it was interesting that the idiomatic language used here—"he will see descendants and enjoy long life"—emphasizes the Servant's restoration to divine favor. Having numerous descendants and living a long life are standard signs of covenant blessing (cf. Job 42:13-16).

 

[John Bauer]

PART 2:​

Here are some more scriptures with either explicit or implicit penal substitutionary language:

Romans 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Romans 5:8-9 God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, because we have now been declared righteous by his blood, we will be saved through him from God's wrath.

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (because it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree") …

Ephesians 5:2 … [Christ] gave himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God.

Ephesians 5:25 … Christ loved the church and gave himself for her …

Colossians 2:13-15 [God] forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement [propitiation] for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 9:28 … Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many, …

1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we may cease from sinning and live for righteousness. By his wounds you were healed.

1 Peter 3:18 Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh but by being made alive in the spirit.

1 John 2:2 [Jesus Christ] himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.
​

Here, the Greek term ἱλασμός (hilasmos, atoning sacrifice) is not one-dimensional. Christ's atoning sacrifice not only satisfies God's wrath against sin (propitiation) but also removes the guilt and stain of sin (expiation). Christ Jesus "set us free from our sins at the cost of his own blood" (Rev 1:5). Moreover, propitiation is technically about turning aside God's wrath. But that raises the question: From where, and to where? And the answer is from us believers and to himself (and so God's wrath remains on those who reject the Son, John 3:36). Where do we find this idea that he turned God's wrath to himself?

Matthew 26:39-42 Going a little farther, he threw himself down with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if possible, let this cup pass from me! Yet not what I will, but what you will." … He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if this cup cannot be taken away unless I drink it, then your will must be done."
​

The cup does not represent mere suffering or impending death. In continuity with the Old Testament prophets and Christ’s own vocabulary, this is the cup of divine wrath, the wine of God's anger mixed undiluted, the judicial penalty for covenant-breaking sin. Christ prays for its removal not out of weakness or dread of suffering but because the one without sin is about to undergo the full fury of the covenant curses on behalf of his sinful people. This is not assumed, it is (a) established by Old Testament prophetic usage, (b) continued by Christ's own language of "cup" as shorthand for atoning suffering, and (c) fulfilled narratively in his cry of abandonment under God's judgment. Christ Jesus exhausted the cup of God's wrath so that there is no condemnation left for those in him.

Isaiah 51:17 Wake up! Wake up! Get up, O Jerusalem! You drank from the cup the LORD passed to you, which was full of his anger! You drained dry the goblet full of intoxicating wine.

Zechariah 12:2 "I am about to make Jerusalem a cup that brings dizziness to all the surrounding nations; indeed, Judah will also be included when Jerusalem is besieged." [The NET notes that this imagery, a cup that brings dizziness, "is that of drunkenness. The LORD will force the nations to drink of his judgment and, in doing so, they will become so intoxicated by his wrath that they will stumble and become irrational." Sounds like the 21st century, too.]
​

According to the Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (1996), the cup represented divine judgment on sin, which the Father had given him to drink. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (1998) concurs that the cup is "used figuratively as a symbol of God's judgment against sin." It goes on to explain:

God is pictured punishing wicked, rebellious people by making them drunk (Isa 51:17, 22; Jer 25:15-16; Ezek 23:31-34; Mark 14:36). Drunkenness may seem a mild picture for divine wrath compared to the horrors of war, natural disaster, and disease that God [normally visits] on sinners. But, in a way, the cup of wrath is a particularly dark symbol of judgment. … God is seen personally handing sinners their destruction and forcing them to drink. In Jeremiah 25:27 God tells the nations, "Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more."

The image of the cup of wrath carries special horror because, unlike being overtaken by battle, earthquake, or plague, drinking is something a person does deliberately. Drunkenness implies a humiliating progression: people begin confident of their power to handle the wine, but it eventually masters them. In several passages that feature the cup of God's wrath, we see that sinners start out arrogant (see Ps 75:4-5; Jer 49:12-16; Rev 18:6-8) but lose any vestige of human dignity as they drink the cup God hands them "down to its very dregs" (Ps 75:8). They stagger and fall unconscious in the streets (Is 51:17-20); they are exposed and disgraced (Hab 2:16); they go mad (Jer 51:7); they are scorned and "walked over" by their enemies (Is 51:23). Yet clearly their own choices, not God's capricious anger, have precipitated their destruction.

When we remember the predominant use of cup imagery in the Old Testament, Jesus' repeated use of the word cup to signify his impending death takes on great significance. When he pleads, "Abba, Father … take this cup from me" (Mark 14:36), we realize that his anguish grows principally from the prospect of feeling the full weight of his Father's anger against sin fall on himself. His ordeal is especially poignant because he, alone among humankind, does not deserve God's wrath—yet he chooses to surrender to crucifixion, so that sinners can receive forgiveness. As the soldiers come to arrest him, humility and heroism mingle in his words: "Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" (John 18:11).

Because Jesus drinks the cup of wrath, he can offer his followers the cup of the new covenant. "Drink from it, all of you," Jesus tells the disciples at the Last Supper. "This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt 26:27-29). All who accept Jesus' sacrifice for themselves can appropriate the blessings of forgiveness, fellowship with God and other believers, and certainty of eternal life that this cup of the new covenant holds (1 Cor 11:25-26). But any who take Jesus' sacrifice lightly or reject it completely will find themselves drinking the cup of God's judgment (1 Cor 11:27-30; Rev 17:3-6; 18:6-8).

The cup Christ received was not a symbol of mere suffering or martyrdom, but the judicial outpouring of divine wrath reserved for covenant breakers. In willingly drinking it, he bore the full penalty of sin in the place of his people, satisfying the demands of God’s justice through penal substitution. This was not incidental but deliberate—a voluntary offering under divine appointment, whereby the wrath due to the elect was turned aside and exhausted in the suffering Servant. It was penal, it was substitutionary, and it was atoning: all for whom Christ drank the cup may instead drink the cup of blessing. But for those who reject him, the dreadful wine of wrath remains—undiluted, filled to the brim, unavoidable, and just.

Regarding death:

Since Christ bore the death penalty due to sin for believers,

• we will never perish, which is a permanent, ontological, or eternal separation from God (the second death).
  
  ​
• physical death is no longer dreadful but a threshold; the elect "sleep" in Christ (1 Thess 4:13–14), awaiting resurrection to eternal life (whereas the reprobate "perish" apart from Christ, awaiting resurrection to eternal punishment).
  
  ​
• the sting of death—its curse and condemnation—has been removed. We no longer fear death.
  
  ​
• we die physically but not punitively; we die as those united to Christ, who conquered death.
  
  ​
• "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live even if he dies" (John 11:25).

Christ has defeated death, but he has not yet eliminated it. The elect still die because we live in the overlap between ages. The final conquest of death is eschatological. For believers, now, death has a non-penal, transformative, covenantally redemptive nature; it is a temporary interruption, not an eternal penalty, a threshold in their sanctification, an exodus from the present age into their glorification in the presence of Christ.

 

[John Bauer]

(Side note regarding ontological death: This is the final and comprehensive separation of the human person—body and soul—from the triune God. It issues from covenantal rebellion in Adam, manifesting in spiritual corruption and physical mortality that carries a sting, and it culminates in this complete and permanent separation from God. The victory of Christ's death and resurrection was the conquest of ontological death.)

 

[Arial]

You are wrong. It is only in a human mindset that the one must be satisfied BEFORE the other can be done. You no doubt consider it a logical sequence, but it is not.

God is free to show mercy as he pleases. It does not need to wait for anything. As a matter of fact, the way he shows his mercy is by removing his wrath, and that, by placing it on his Son. The two need not be arranged to be one the effect of the other. God is all his attributes, not one over the others.

There are two types of mercy that we find int the Bible. Or rather mercy for different purposes. One is temporary. That is it pertains to the here and now, (any here and now) and is situational, and is serving God's purposes. Sin does not receive its just deserts in the moment. We see this in the sacrifices of the OT, the sustaining of creation, provision for all life etc.

And there is the mercy that provides eternal life and saves from God's ultimate judgement and wrath. This is the mercy that must have sin and sins propitiated first.

 

[makesends]

That said, here it is. (I had to split it into two because it was over 10,000 characters. What a stupid limit.)

Now see how a thread gets deviated!

It's not stupid. Reading more than 10,000 characters means commitment! You're not usually as hard to follow as some, but some are just not worth it.

Well, that is, when it happens to my posts, yeah, it's stupid!

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Notice it’s never on the innocent , righteous , holy , believers but always on the wicked and rebellious sinners. It’s not once said to be upon Christ from the Father.

Thayers lexicon

ὀργή, ὀργῆς, ἡ (from ὀργάω to teem, denoting an internal motion, especially that of plants and fruits swelling with juice (Curtius, § 152); cf.

Latinturgerealicuiforirascialicui in Plautus Cas. 2, 5, 17; Most. 3, 2, 10; cf. German arg, Aerger), in Greek writings from Hesiod down "the natural disposition, temper, character; movement or agitation of soul, impulse, desire, any violent emotion," but especially (and chiefly in Attic) anger.

In Biblical Greek anger, wrath, indignation(on the distinction between it and θυμός, see θυμός, 1): Ephesians 4:31; Colossians 3:8; James 1:19f; μετ' ὀργῆς, indignant (A. V. with anger), Mark 3:5; χωρίς ὀργῆς, 1 Timothy 2:8; anger exhibited in punishing, hence, used for the punishment itself (Demosthenes or. in middle § 43): of the punishments inflicted by magistrates,

Romans 13:4; διά τήν ὀργήν, i. e. because disobedience is visited with punishment, Romans 13:5. The ὀργή attributed to God in the N. T. is that in God which stands opposed to man's disobedience, obduracy (especially in resisting the gospel) and sin, and manifests itself in punishing the same: John 3:36; Romans 1:18; Romans 4:15; Romans 9:22a; Hebrews 3:11; Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 14:10; Revelation 16:19; Revelation 19:15; absolutely, ἡ ὀργή, Romans 12:19 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 594 (553));

σκεύη ὀργῆς, vessels into which wrath will be poured (at the last day), explained by the addition κατηρτισμέναεἰς ἀπώλειαν, Romans 9:22b; ἡ μελλουσαὀργή, which at the last day will be exhibited in penalties, Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7 (others understand in these two passages the (national) judgments immediately impending to be referred to — at least primarily); also ἡ ὀργή ἡἐρχομένη, 1 Thessalonians 1:10; ἡμέραὀργῆς, the day on which the wrath of God will be made manifest in the punishment of the wicked (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 30, 2 a.), Romans 2:5; and ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλητῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ (Revelation 6:17; see ἡμέρα, 3 at the end); ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργή τοῦΘεοῦ ἐπί τινα, the wrath of God cometh upon one in the infliction of penalty (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 40, 2 a.), Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6 (T Tr WH omit; Lbrackets ἐπί etc.); ἔφθασε (ἔφθακεν L text WH marginal reading) ἐπ' αὐτούς ἡ ὀργή, 1 Thessalonians 2:16; so ἡ ὀργή passes over into the notion of retribution and punishment, Luke 21:23; Rom. (Romans 2:8); ; Revelation 11:18; τέκνα ὀργῆς, men exposed to divine punishment, Ephesians 2:3; εἰς ὀργήν, unto wrath, i. e. to undergo punishment in misery, 1 Thessalonians 5:9. ὀργή is attributed to Christ also when he comes as Messianic judge, Revelation 6:16. (The Sept. for עֶבְרָה, wrath, outburst of anger,

Notice " Gods Wrath " it doesn’t fall on Christ but Jesus protects believes from Gods wrath

Wrath is defined as “the emotional response to perceived wrong and injustice,” often translated as “anger,” “indignation,” “vexation,” or “irritation.” Both humans and God express wrath. But there is vast difference between the wrath of God and the wrath of man. God’s wrath is holy and always justified; man’s is never holy and rarely justified.

In the Old Testament, the wrath of God is a divine response to human sin and disobedience. Idolatry was most often the occasion for divine wrath. Psalm 78:56-66 describes Israel’s idolatry. The wrath of God is consistently directed towards those who do not follow His will (Deuteronomy 1:26-46; Joshua 7:1; Psalm 2:1-6). The Old Testament prophets often wrote of a day in the future, the "day of wrath" (Zephaniah 1:14-15). God’s wrath against sin and disobedience is perfectly justified because His plan for mankind is holy and perfect, just as God Himself is holy and perfect. God provided a way to gain divine favor—repentance—which turns God’s wrath away from the sinner. To reject that perfect plan is to reject God’s love, mercy, grace and favor and incur His righteous wrath.

The New Testament also supports the concept of God as a God of wrath who judges sin. The story of the rich man and Lazarus speaks of the judgment of God and serious consequences for the unrepentant sinner (Luke 16:19–31). John 3:36 says, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” The one who believes in the Son will not suffer God’s wrath for his sin, because the Son took God’s wrath upon Himself when He died in our place on the cross (Romans 5:6–11). Those who do not believe in the Son, who do not receive Him as Savior, will be judged on the day of wrath (Romans 2:5–6).

Conversely, human wrath is warned against in Romans 12:19, Ephesians 4:26, and Colossians 3:8-10. God alone is able to avenge because His vengeance is perfect and holy, whereas man’s wrath is sinful, opening him up to demonic influence. For the Christian, anger and wrath are inconsistent with our new nature, which is the nature of Christ Himself (2 Corinthians 5:17). To realize freedom from the domination of wrath, the believer needs the Holy Spirit to sanctify and cleanse his heart of feelings of wrath and anger. Romans 8 shows victory over sin in the life of one who is living in the Spirit (Romans 8:5-8). Philippians 4:4-7 tells us that the mind controlled by the Spirit is filled with peace.

The wrath of God is a fearsome and terrifying thing. Only those who have been covered by the blood of Christ, shed for us on the cross, can be assured that God’s wrath will never fall on them. “Since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through Him!” (Romans 5:9). Got?

hope this helps !!!

If the wrath of God did not fall on Christ how did Jesus pay for sin?

 

[Carbon]

(Side note regarding ontological death: This is the final and comprehensive separation of the human person—body and soul—from the triune God. It issues from covenantal rebellion in Adam, manifesting in spiritual corruption and physical mortality that carries a sting, and it culminates in this complete and permanent separation from God. The victory of Christ's death and resurrection was the conquest of ontological death.)

Excellent replies. I do hope @atpollard and or @civic reply.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

(Side note regarding ontological death: This is the final and comprehensive separation of the human person—body and soul—from the triune God. It issues from covenantal rebellion in Adam, manifesting in spiritual corruption and physical mortality that carries a sting, and it culminates in this complete and permanent separation from God. The victory of Christ's death and resurrection was the conquest of ontological death.)

So

He who does not believe is condemned

The wage of sin is death

Is that what your saying