Transferred Wrath

[Eleanor]

Well, I could go along with those descriptions ... but my point that it is impossible to punish Christ per the following premises:
Premise 1: Christ was sinless

Christ, the human being, willingly paid the price of God's wrath on the sin of those redeemed from that wrath through faith in Jesus and his atoning work.

1 Pe 2:24 - He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.

Gal 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (he was cursed for us).

Ro 8:32 - God did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us.
"Gave him up" to what?. . .subjection to the Father's wrath on sin.

What did Jesus mean on the cross when he cried out in anguish that the Father had forsaken him?
He was referring to that separation from the Father which was part of the wrath poured out on him as payment for our sin.

Premise 2: The definition "PUNISH" is defined as: inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code. It is not just to punish someone for another's offense. Now, you can demand payment from person "A" for the offense of person "B".
In short, I don't believe the verb PUNISH is suitable.

Heb 10:29 - "How much more punishment (timoria--vengeance) do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God and profaned the covenant by which he was sanctified. . . ?

Well, I intentionally gave the biblical 7x70 verse show that forgiveness did not require atonement so unless you can show my proof to be invalid I would say you premise has been shown to be incorrect.

Is this fastfreddy?

That verse is about man-to-man, not about man-to-God.

???????

Because God commanded it be so. I am not here to lay of a theory about WHY.... a previous post gave 6 or 7 different theories. In just saying forgiveness doesn't necessarily require atonement and gave 7x70 verse as an example.



I have no issue with the description of Christ as our substitute. I just don't think one can say Christ incurred a PENALTY be that means Christ did something immoral by definition.

I use the word "impute" instead of "transfer".
"Impute" ... represent as being done, caused, or possessed by someone ... Christ caused us to be righteous judiciously
"Transfer" ... to move from one place to another .... we can never be made righteous should that Jesus can do something and it will mean we never sinned

Aside: I think we are in basic agreement. I just don't like the work PUNISH being applied to God. Maybe you see the definition of the word PUNISH differently than I.

 

[David1701]

The definition of "punish" is: inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code. Therefore, IMO, anyone that says God punished Jesus is wrong since Jesus was sinless.

Then you reject Jesus as your Substitute, which means that you will be due to receive the just recompense for your own sins.

Do you not know that Jesus was made sin for us, so that we would be made the righteousness of God, in him?

 

[makesends]

Then you reject Jesus as your Substitute, which means that you will be due to receive the just recompense for your own sins.

Do you not know that Jesus was made sin for us, so that we would be made the righteousness of God, in him?

Don't take him too seriously, man. He's working out the terminology with you, not the principles.

 

[Carbon]

IMO, anyone that says God punished Jesus is wrong since Jesus was sinless.

What?

 

[Carbon]

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).

Right. And it's a really bad name for a thread.

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: IMO, anyone that says God punished Jesus is wrong since Jesus was sinless.

What?

I explained it with premises to validate my statement.

Well, I could go along with those descriptions ... but my point that it is impossible to punish Christ per the following premises:
Premise 1: Christ was sinless
Premise 2: The definition "PUNISH" is defined as: inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code. It is not just to punish someone for another's offense. Now, you can demand payment from person "A" for the offense of person "B".
In short, I don't believe the verb PUNISH is suitable.

In simple terms, you cannot technically "punish" a person who did nothing wrong because the dictionary definition of punishment requires the recipient do something wrong. That's a technicality. Yeah, God predestined Christ to be tortured. Acts 2:23, Acts 4:28)

You can disagree by simply showing a premise to be incorrect.

 

[David1701]

Don't take him too seriously, man. He's working out the terminology with you, not the principles.

We'll see; but, I find nothing difficult to understand about the "terminology" of punishment. It's very straightforward.

 

[David1701]

Re: IMO, anyone that says God punished Jesus is wrong since Jesus was sinless.

I explained it with premises to validate my statement.


In simple terms, you cannot technically "punish" a person who did nothing wrong because the dictionary definition of punishment requires the recipient do something wrong. That's a technicality. Yeah, God predestined Christ to be tortured. Acts 2:23, Acts 4:28)

You can disagree by simply showing a premise to be incorrect.

Jesus became sin for us, which means that he was treated as if he had sinned all of our sins. That's what it means to be our substitute.

Cursed is everyone who is hanged upon a tree: that cursed punishment required that the person had done something evil to deserve it. Crucifixion was a punishment (and only a punishment); it was one of the cruelest and most torturous punishments ever devised, reserved for the worst criminals. In other words, God, who ordained the cross to happen, ordained Jesus to be punished, and not only punished, but punished worse than anyone had ever been punished before, in bearing all of our sins and the just recompense for them.

Do you believe this, because this is the heart of the gospel; in fact, without it, there is no gospel.

 

[David1701]

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...

I had a little think about your claim that the Flood was a type of the Cross; and, although it's not explicitly stated as such, I think you might well be right.

Noah and the others were safe in the ark, lifted up from the earth by the flood waters (as Jesus was lifted up from the earth, on the cross); meanwhile, the just judgment of God beat upon the ark (i.e. Jesus) that protected them, in a vehement storm (just as Jesus bore the just judgment of God upon our sin); and those outside were destroyed.

A saved humanity emerged from the ark and spread across the Earth, telling the story of salvation from the God's judgment (just like those whom God has saved spread the gospel across the world, in evangelism).

 

[John Bauer]

Well, I could go along with those descriptions, but my point that it is impossible to punish Christ given the following premises:

1. Premise 1: Christ was sinless.
   
   ​
2. Premise 2: The word punish is defined as: "inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code.

Explain the first premise in light of 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Galatians 3:13, please.

It is not just to punish someone for another's offense. … In short, I don't believe the verb PUNISH is suitable. … I have no issue with the description of Christ as our substitute. I just don't think one can say Christ incurred a PENALTY because that means Christ did something immoral, by definition.

Then you reject the penal substitutionary atonement theory of the cross. What theory do you accept, if any?

I intentionally gave the biblical 7 x 70 verse to show that forgiveness did not require atonement. So, unless you can show my proof to be invalid, I would say you premise has been shown to be incorrect.

The reference to "seventy times seven" in Matthew 18:22 concerns human forgiveness in the context of personal offenses, not divine justice in the context of guilt before God, whose justice is holy, perfect, and essential to his being. Human forgiveness is personal, not judicial. It is about letting go of resentment, refusing to retaliate, and entrusting justice to God (Rom. 12:19; cf. Jas. 1:20). We forgive because judgment belongs to God, not us. While we forgive and pray for our enemies, we do so because judgment has been reserved for God alone. This is the logic behind Christ's command to forgive without limit, not because guilt is to be waived or ignored but because justice will be done—but by God, not by us.

The cross is not God setting aside justice; it is God satisfying justice in the only way possible—by substituting his Son in the place of sinners.

What did the Son do as our substitute that satisfied divine justice, if not bear the penalty our sins were due?

I'm just saying forgiveness doesn't necessarily require atonement, …

But justice does. God can forgive because he is just and the justifier. Again, justice is essential to his being.

I just don't like the word PUNISH being applied to God.

Well, at least you admitted it was a matter of what you like. However, truth is not determined by what we find comfortable—it's determined by what scripture reveals about God's justice and redemptive work.

 

[ReverendRV]

Re: IMO, anyone that says God punished Jesus is wrong since Jesus was sinless.

I explained it with premises to validate my statement.


In simple terms, you cannot technically "punish" a person who did nothing wrong because the dictionary definition of punishment requires the recipient do something wrong. That's a technicality. Yeah, God predestined Christ to be tortured. Acts 2:23, Acts 4:28)

You can disagree by simply showing a premise to be incorrect.

What about our Chastisement being upon him?


At the end of the day, we're Sola Scripturists. I'm sure you feel asailed, but no secular dictionary can capture the meaning of God Punishing his Son; as the Bible teaches. Sola Scriptura is greater, right?

It's my opinion that this is a Sola Scriptura issue. Anti PSA people seem to prefer doctrines or dictionaries, more than the Word. This IS a Sola Scriptura issue...

 

[ReverendRV]

I had a little think about your claim that the Flood was a type of the Cross; and, although it's not explicitly stated as such, I think you might well be right.

Noah and the others were safe in the ark, lifted up from the earth by the flood waters (as Jesus was lifted up from the earth, on the cross); meanwhile, the just judgment of God beat upon the ark (i.e. Jesus) that protected them, in a vehement storm (just as Jesus bore the just judgment of God upon our sin); and those outside were destroyed.

A saved humanity emerged from the ark and spread across the Earth, telling the story of salvation from the God's judgment (just like those whom God has saved spread the gospel across the world, in evangelism).

That's the way I learned it, and it fits SO well...

Honestly, I'm surprised the Reformed seem to not know this. We're defending PSA with one arm tied behind our back. Maybe it's a Baptist thing...

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: Premise 1: Christ was sinless.

Explain the first premise in light of 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Galatians 3:13, please.

Aside: Not often I have to validate that Jesus was sinless *smile*
2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Christ who knew no sin to [judicially] be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we would become the righteousness of God [that is, we would be made acceptable to Him and placed in a right relationship with Him by His gracious lovingkindness]. AMP
Seems like the AMP implies an answer. Jesus was sinless in and of Himself, but judicially was found liable to take on the sin of the world (elect).
I grant that I think I can see your point of view.
I could go on and show Christ is God and God cannot sin by definition as there is no higher power to assign rules/obligations to Him.
James White, a proponent of Calvinism, interprets 2 Corinthians 5:21 through the lens of God's sovereignty and the doctrine of imputation. He understands the passage as illustrating God's act of assigning sin to Christ on behalf of believers and, conversely, assigning Christ's righteousness to believers, says Examining Calvinism. He emphasizes that this is a divine transaction where God imputes, or credits, sin to Christ and righteousness to believers, according to the same source.

Galatians 3:13 Christ purchased our freedom and redeemed us from the curse of the Law and its condemnation by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs [crucified] on a tree (cross)”—
In the Bible, being cursed signifies pronouncements of divine judgment or misfortune, often [but not always] a consequence of disobedience or transgression.

Then you reject the penal substitutionary atonement theory of the cross. What theory do you accept, if any?

When I looked into the various theories (note word theories which I believe theologians agree to this term) the author said all the theories had questionable aspects. God ways and not our ways so man has to explain God at time using analogies that they feel best fit the situation. If I had to pick, PSA sounds best to me but I have not studies all the theories.

The reference to "seventy times seven" in Matthew 18:22 concerns human forgiveness in the context of personal offenses, not divine justice in the context of guilt before God, whose justice is holy, perfect, and essential to his being.

Point taken. On the other hand it is possible that when it comes to divine justice the same idea that "forgiveness does not require atonement" could apply to God. I interjected the 7x70 as I thought is was evidence that "forgiveness does not require atonement", granted not conclusive evidence.
If "justice" requires an atonement equal to the penalty committed in order to forgive then Christ's death on the cross was a far greater atonement than was necessary and thus by this definition justice was not done.

Gee... a lot of questions. I grant there are many hypothesis being forwarded ... but then that's what you get when discussing PSA.
Where is @atpollard ... he's smart and should be answering questions on his thread *smile*

 

[ReverendRV]

That's the way I learned it, and it fits SO well...

Honestly, I'm surprised the Reformed seem to not know this. We're defending PSA with one arm tied behind our back. Maybe it's a Baptist thing...

The ark was a type of Christ, into whom whoever enters by faith, or in whom whoever believes, shall be saved; but as they that entered into the ark were but few, so are those that enter in at the strait gate, or believe in Christ; and they that went into the ark were saved by the water bearing up the ark, even by that by which others were destroyed; as the very same thing, for different reasons, is the cause or means of destruction and salvation; so Christ is set, for the fall and rising of many, is a stumblingblock to some, and the power and wisdom of God to others; and the Gospel, and the ministers of it, are the savour of life unto life to some, and the savour of death unto death to others.

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible - 1 Peter 3:20

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible - 1 Peter 3:20

johngill.thekingsbible.com

Establishing that this is considered a Type, or at least an Antitype, is the start for using it to defend PSA. Jesus sailed through the Wrath of God for Us...

 

[fastfredy0]

What did the Son do as our substitute that satisfied divine justice, if not bear the penalty our sins were due?

I agree with this statement. My nuanced issue is that though Christ bore our penalty He Himself, though He suffered, technically He was not penalized as the dictionary definition of penalty requires that the penalized person do something sinful and Christ never sinned. Hey, not a big difference. Not worth discussion further. I believe I see your point.

Well, at least you admitted it was a matter of what you like. However, truth is not determined by what we find comfortable—it's determined by what scripture reveals about God's justice and redemptive work.

Agreed. Can scripture convey the knowledge of the Almighty? If not, perhaps scripture is insufficient when delving deeply into subjects like PSA.

Interesting discussion. Thanks for your input.

 

[fastfredy0]

What about our Chastisement being upon him?

Chastisement - the act of scolding, punishing, or criticizing someone severely, often as a form of discipline or correction

Seem Chastisement is a synonym for "punish". Therefore my stance is the same.

Hey, I'm just splitting hairs. I don't see a big disagreement.

At the end of the day, we're Sola Scripturists. I'm sure you feel asailed, but no secular dictionary can capture the meaning of God Punishing his Son; as the Bible teaches. Sola Scriptura is greater, right? It's my opinion that this is a Sola Scriptura issue. Anti PSA people seem to prefer doctrines or dictionaries, more than the Word. This IS a Sola Scriptura issue...

I don't feel assailed. We just having a discussion of how we understand God. Yes, I'm Sola Scriptura. I just don't see all aspects of PSA being found in scripture but I do think PSA is close to the truth and not all of God's truths are found in scripture and thus people come up with THEORIES, of which PSA is one.

 

[fastfredy0]

@ReverendRV ... your always so generous with the "LIKES"
Time of breakfast

 

[ReverendRV]

Chastisement - the act of scolding, punishing, or criticizing someone severely, often as a form of discipline or correction

Seem Chastisement is a synonym for "punish". Therefore my stance is the same.

Hey, I'm just splitting hairs. I don't see a big disagreement.


I don't feel assailed. We just having a discussion of how we understand God. Yes, I'm Sola Scriptura. I just don't see all aspects of PSA being found in scripture but I do think PSA is close to the truth and not all of God's truths are found in scripture and thus people come up with THEORIES, of which PSA is one.

After reading your responses; I see now, I was worried over nothing. Splitting hairs. It reminds me of some of the hairs I split by liking New Calvinism or Fullerism. It can feel like being under the Microscope...

 

[ReverendRV]

Chastisement - the act of scolding, punishing, or criticizing someone severely, often as a form of discipline or correction

Seem Chastisement is a synonym for "punish". Therefore my stance is the same.

Hey, I'm just splitting hairs. I don't see a big disagreement.

Smitten ~ by ReverendRV * September 29

Isaiah 53:4 KJV; Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted.

What must it be like to be Smitten by God? The word Smitten means, ‘Strike with a firm blow, defeat or conquer’. The Bible says God Smote Egypt through their firstborn during the last of the Ten Plagues that the Lord sent upon them for harming his children Israel. Other examples exist in the Bible of God Smiting, but I want to focus on two events which occurred in like manner. ~ God set Israel free from Egypt and led them into the Desert. They began to thirst and complain to Moses that he led them out to die. Moses sought the LORD, and God told him to Smite a rock so that water would flow from it. Once again, there came time the people began to thirst in the wilderness. When the people complained, God told Moses to ‘speak’ to a rock so water would flow. Moses went to the rock and struck it twice so that water flowed from it for the people. But because of this, God told Moses that he would NOT be able to enter into the Promised Land…

Moses represents the Law of God, the Ten Commandments. Paul tells us in the New Testament that the Rock represented the Lord Jesus Christ. “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ”. God led Moses to a rock, an example of one way to use the Law of God; to lead people to Jesus Christ. Another example of a use for the Law is to show people that it brings us Punishment. How many have broken a Law? Have you ever broken the Speed Limit? It is easier to break a Law than we might think. God’s Law says that we shall not Covet; have you ever wanted to keep up with the Jones’? If you have broken any of the Ten Commandments, you will be Smitten and Afflicted by God…

You ask, ‘Since I will be Smitten, why was the rock Smitten instead of the People?’ Since the rock represents Jesus, it was Smitten because it’s a ‘Type’ of how Jesus was Smitten, as Punishment due to the people. He was Stricken, Smitten and Afflicted by the Romans and nailed to a Cross. As the rock in the desert bore the punishment of a Staff, Jesus Christ Bore God’s Punishment for the Sin of the world; as if he were the spotless lamb of old. He died and rose from the grave to show that he has authority to forgive Sins. We’re Saved by the Grace of God through Faith in the risen Savior Jesus Christ, without Works lest we should Smite the Smitten Rock. Repent of your Sins, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God; and you’ll not be Smitten by God in an eternal Hell…

Paul says the rock followed the people in the Wilderness of Sin. Moses was not reprimanded for smiting the rock the first time because the Law does lead us to our Rock; Jesus Christ. But Moses was severely admonished for Smiting the rock at the second location. God does not intend for us to continue to use the Law in order to keep receiving the Living Waters that come from Jesus; he was Crucified once for all. It is impossible to Crucify him again; to do so is to Smite him twice through the Law. Because Moses Smote the rock after God told him to Speak to the rock, he was only allowed to peer at the Promised Land. This is a symbol of what happens if we continue to use the Law to perpetually come to Jesus. Speak to the Lord Jesus Christ through Faith and in prayer; and rivers of Living Waters will flow from within your Soul; welling up to Eternal Life!

Romans 11:6 NIV; And if by Grace, then it can no longer be based on Works; if it were, Grace would no longer be Grace.

 

[ReverendRV]

PSA is a Fulfilled Prophecy; we DO esteem Christ Striken, Smitten and Afflicted by God. We're to accept the Fulfillment of the Estimation, as the Truth of the Matter; AND as the foremost Theory of the Atonement...

dictionaries and doctrines which disagree with PSA don't trump the Bible; that's Antithetical...


This is too easy. Defying it, is the hard part...