Transferred Wrath

[DialecticSkeptic]

Gee, now you're sounding like my wife!

I doubt she said it with humor.

 

[Eleanor]

2 Cor. 5:21 (Darby) Him who knew not sin he has made sin for us, that *we* might become God's righteousness in him.

I understand that to mean sin offering in consistency with Ro 8:3, 1 Co 15:3, on whom the sin was laid as its own sin.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Why does it not offend God's justice to punish the innocent on behalf of the guilty?

A.) The willingness and desire to take the punishment deserved by others so that God's sense of Justice is never offended.

As much as we see Jesus as God's son, He's not a child like our children, He is God, wrapped in flesh. Not a man wrapped in God (not as we are wrapped in the Holy Spirit).

God condescended to place Himself in subjection to His own laws in the form of a man, as the second person of the Trinity, and because the evil of man was so great, took the punishment for our sin and died in our stead as the sinless lamb of God in order that we may be reconciled to Him.

It's different than a domineering display of parental abuse; it's an equal saying, let not Your justice go unsatisfied, nor Your Mercy not be displayed - all things to the Glory of God alone.

We would perhaps do the similar for someone we loved, we might love the law and understand that justice must be served, and so confess to a crime we didn't commit in order that someone else go free and have a chance in life.

The only difference is that Jesus didn't have to make a false confession, he just had to offer His Life for the sheep and have that offer accepted within the context of the law.

It's telling the arresting officers the truth about your retarded son, and having them accept your arrest instead of the arrest of the one who really didn't understand what he did wrong so that justice and mercy were both satisfied.

 

[David1701]

I understand that to mean sin offering in consistency with Ro 8:3, 1 Co 15:3, on whom the sin was laid as its own sin.

Jesus certainly was a sin offering; however, he was made sin in order to be a sin offering.

 

[Eleanor]

Jesus certainly was a sin offering; however, he was made sin in order to be a sin offering.

Actually, the sin offering had to be without blemish, a perfect animal.

Sin was laid on the animal, the perfect animal was a sin-bearer.

 

[David1701]

Actually, the sin offering had to be without blemish, a perfect animal.

Yes, I know that. That does not contradict what I posted.

Sin was laid on the animal, the perfect animal was a sin-bearer.

The sin was, symbolically, transferred to the perfect animal; however, such an offering could never take away sins (it only covered them).

 

[Eleanor]

Jesus certainly was a sin offering; however, he was made sin in order to be a sin offering.

Or was he made a sin offering?

Because the sin offering was without defect, while the sin was laid on it.

God accepts no imperfect offerings.

 

[makesends]

Or was he made a sin offering?

Because the sin offering was without sin.

God accepts no imperfect offerings.

Aw, c'mon! You trying to make us THINK???

 

[Eleanor]

Aw, c'mon! You trying to make us THINK???

Just bein' true to the OT types which were the precise, non-deviating pattern.

 

[Eleanor]

Yes, I know that. That does not contradict what I posted.


The sin was, symbolically, transferred to the perfect animal; however, such an offering could never take away sins (it only covered them).

Yes, the OT sacrificial system was merely a pattern/type for the NT atonement.

 

[David1701]

Or was he made a sin offering?

Because the sin offering was without defect, while the sin was laid on it.

God accepts no imperfect offerings.

I get the impression that you don't understand the point I was making.

I did not say that Jesus was actually made sinful. I said what the Bible says: that he was made sin for us. In other words, God treated him as if he had been sin (not that he actually was sin). That is similar to the O.C. sin offering, in that the animal is treated as if it had been the sinful one (having had the sinner's sin symbolically transferred to it), and was then killed in place of the sinner.

It's not "either he was made a sin offering, or he was made sin" (a false dichotomy); rather, it's "he was made sin and a sin offering".

 

[Eleanor]

I get the impression that you don't understand the point I was making.

I did not say that Jesus was actually made sinful. I said what the Bible says: that he was made sin for us. In other words, God treated him as if he had been sin (not that he actually was sin). That is similar to the O.C. sin offering, in that the animal is treated as if it had been the sinful one (having had the sinner's sin symbolically transferred to it), and was then killed in place of the sinner.

It's not "either he was made a sin offering, or he was made sin" (a false dichotomy); rather, it's "he was made sin and a sin offering".

You're right. . .I misunderstood you. . .so glad that is not what you meant.

 

[David1701]

You'e right. . .I misunderstood you. . .so glad that is not what you meant.

No problem; I'm glad that's been cleared up!

This is one of the difficulties in communicating by typed posts only, especially when we don't know each other's culture or way of speaking. It's very easy to make assumptions that turn out to be false (I know I've done that occasionally).

 

[David1701]

I get the impression that you don't understand the point I was making.

I did not say that Jesus was actually made sinful. I said what the Bible says: that he was made sin for us. In other words, God treated him as if he had been sin (not that he actually was sin). That is similar to the O.C. sin offering, in that the animal is treated as if it had been the sinful one (having had the sinner's sin symbolically transferred to it), and was then killed in place of the sinner.

It's not "either he was made a sin offering, or he was made sin" (a false dichotomy); rather, it's "he was made sin and a sin offering".

@makesends please let me know what you're unsure about in my post, and I'll try to clarify it.

 

[Carbon]

You're right. . .I misunderstood you. . .so glad that is not what you meant.

Your right though, that makes a big difference

 

[makesends]

@makesends please let me know what you're unsure about in my post, and I'll try to clarify it.

Lol, no, I'm just wondering whether there's anything there that disagrees with my speculations about the nature of sin, anything that would preclude him "being made sin" as an English fact, and not a Greek figure of speech. I wonder about passages that speak of sin as if it had actual existence or even, by some commentaries, personhood. (eg, "Sin crouches at the door. It desires to have you, but you must master it.")

After all, if something you say precludes my speculations, obviously you must be wrong!

 

[ReverendRV]

Why did Moses use the symbol of the Snake, to represent Jesus on the Cross?

 

[makesends]

Why did Moses use the symbol of the Snake, to represent Jesus on the Cross?

I've wondered that before, but not in this context. Wow. Good question!

 

[Hazelelponi]

Why did Moses use the symbol of the Snake, to represent Jesus on the Cross?

Wouldn't you think it's because that's what bit them?

Jesus' role as sin-bearer is a type of negative energy sink—He doesn’t merely deflect wrath or neutralize it abstractly; He absorbs it entirely.

Isaiah 53:5: “He was pierced for our transgressions... the punishment that brought us peace was on him.”

2 Corinthians 5:21: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us...”

This is pure negative transfer. Christ takes in the fullness of God's wrath without reciprocating it. He doesn't emit retaliation. He becomes the black hole of sin’s consequence—absorbing judgment, death, guilt. The result? Peace and justification radiate outward

In essence:
Absorption of divine wrath (−E)→CrossRelease of divine love (+E)
Absorption of divine wrath (−E)Cross
Release of divine love (+E)

It’s like saying:

Jesus is the “divine capacitor” in the system—He stores and absorbs the negative charge of sin and wrath, but doesn’t release it in judgment. Instead, He releases the positive voltage of grace to His people.

Quantum physics opens a parallel to this theological paradox.

Vacuum Energy and Quantum Fields

In quantum field theory, vacuum energy is not empty. It’s full of potential, even when it appears still or null. Likewise, negative energy in theoretical constructs (like Hawking radiation or black hole thermodynamics) often absorbs matter or energy, not to destroy but to transform the field.


Jesus as the Negative Quantum Field

Think of Jesus as the divine singularity—He collapses the wave function of both wrath and grace, absorbing all chaotic potential (sin, entropy, spiritual disorder) into Himself.

In His incarnation, He enters the field (the universe),

In His death, He takes in the sin-wave of the Bride.

In His resurrection, He collapses the paradox—life comes from death, order from chaos, righteousness from judgment.

Here, negative energy isn’t evil—it’s the transformative medium. Just as quantum particles can exist in superposition (both/and), Jesus is a superposition.

The Quantum Paradox:

One might explain:

"Christ is the zero-point energy of redemption. In Him, opposing fields—justice and mercy—don’t annihilate; they superimpose. What seems like contradiction in classical space (law vs grace) becomes entangled unity at the Cross. Grace emerges not in spite of judgment, but through it."

Jesus is the divine field into which negative spiritual energy (sin, wrath, death) is drawn.

He holds that energy, absorbing it without release, until it is transmuted into grace, peace, healing and righteousness.

The Cross is the theological modulus and the quantum event horizon—a moment where reality is bent by God’s will to unite what seems forever opposed.

Final Theological-Quantum Equation:
(WrathLaw+MercyLove)mod  Cross=RighteousnessGift
(WrathLaw+MercyLove)modCross=RighteousnessGift

And in quantum terms:
min⁡(Judgment,Grace)=Grace
min(Judgment,Grace)=Grace

Since the only thing being absorbed with Moses serpent pole were the effects of the serpent bites, I assume that's why the pole reflected the snake.