The WRATH of God poured out on Christ … where?

[ChristisGod]

The above study is what lead me out of calvinism.

 

[Charlie24]

WRATH: strong vengeful anger (Merriam-Webster)

There is a good conversation to be had on the subject of “Jesus and the wrath of God”.
WRATH implies punishment inflicted in anger.

Where is the scripture verse that ever actually says that God (the Father) was EVER angrily punishing Jesus in our place?

I would never suggest that Jesus did not suffer the punishment of God for the sins of men, since there are too many verses that clearly state that.

Nor would I EVER suggest that God will not pour out His wrath on those that reject the salvation offered in Jesus Christ (typically mentioned as part of a final judgement to come).

However, God has also said "The person who sins will die. A son will not suffer [the punishment] for the father's guilt, nor will a father suffer [the punishment] for the son's guilt; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” - Ezekiel 18:20 [NASB20]

Is that not exactly what we claim that God has done when we say that the WRATH of the Father (God) fell on Jesus … angrily punished the innocent for the sin of the guilty?

I would prefer to see a verse that EXPLICITLY supported that claim.
(Now that is a conversation worth having.)

I don't believe that the Father was angry with Christ, how could He be. But the Father had no mercy on Christ as our substitute.

He faced the full force of the Father's wrath on sin. The Law demanded it!

 

[ChristisGod]

I don't believe that the Father was angry with Christ, how could He be. But the Father had no mercy on Christ as our substitute.

He faced the full force of the Father's wrath on sin. The Law demanded it!

Charlie read my study on the topic if you have time with an open mind. I believed exactly like you for the past 40 years until I started studying this a few years ago. Thanks

 

[Charlie24]

Charlie read my study on the topic if you have time with an open mind. I believed exactly like you for the past 40 years until I started studying this a few years ago. Thanks

I don't think there is anything that can be said or shown from scripture that can convince me that the Father tool anger against His Son on the Cross. The sin, yes.

I remember reading Calvin, who I had little in common, saying how can God to be angry with His Son on the Cross, who pleased Him in all that He did. Of course he had much more to say, but I distinctly remember that being an agreement between me and Calvin. That is few and far between.

The way I see it, the problem is sin, the wrath is directed at the sin. But if man keeps his sin, the wrath will take him in his sin.

Christ had no sin, even though our sin was laid upon Him. There could be no anger at Christ, He was actually pleasing the Father by taking our place. I guess that's a powerful love that man can learn from, the agape love.

 

[MatthewG]

Look here at this scripture

1 Thessalonians; Paul writes to the those who are at Thessalonia,

Saying;

• “for ye became imitators, brethren, of the assemblies of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus, because such things ye suffered, even ye, from your own countrymen, as also they from the Jews, who did both put to death the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and did persecute us, and God they are not pleasing, and to all men [are] contrary, forbidding us to speak to the nations that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always, but the anger did come upon them — to the end!”
• ‭‭1 Thessalonians‬ ‭2:14-16‬ ‭YLT98‬‬
• “For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.”
• ‭‭I Thessalonians‬ ‭2:14-16‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

This solves the case of whom the wrath was coming (or Had come upon - which was dished out fully upon the return of the Lord for the Bride in 70Ad) in my opinion.

The Jewish Nation of Israel who YHWH led out the land of Egypt, who willingly killed the prophets and even Gods own Son.

The Son wouldn’t be punished for that, but he did pay for the sufferings of Sin.

 

[ChristisGod]

Look here at this scripture

1 Thessalonians; Paul writes to the those who are at Thessalonia,

Saying;

• “for ye became imitators, brethren, of the assemblies of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus, because such things ye suffered, even ye, from your own countrymen, as also they from the Jews, who did both put to death the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and did persecute us, and God they are not pleasing, and to all men [are] contrary, forbidding us to speak to the nations that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always, but the anger did come upon them — to the end!”
• ‭‭1 Thessalonians‬ ‭2:14-16‬ ‭YLT98‬‬
• “For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.”
• ‭‭I Thessalonians‬ ‭2:14-16‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

This solves the case of whom the wrath was coming (or Had come upon - which was dished out fully upon the return of the Lord for the Bride in 70Ad) in my opinion.

The Jewish Nation of Israel who YHWH led out the land of Egypt.

This thread isn’t about eschatology.

 

[MatthewG]

Yes I know, but it is about the wrath of God, take a look at those scriptures, please read @Christophany.

 

[ChristisGod]

Yes I know, but it is about the wrath of God, take a look at those scriptures, please read @Christophany.

I’m very familiar with all the scriptures about Gods wrath .

Maybe you could read my study on the previous page and let me know what you agree or disagree with .

 

[MatthewG]

I’m sorry Christopher, you’re a nice guy and everything I just don’t wanna read all of it (did take a glance).

 

[ChristisGod]

I’m sorry Christopher, you’re a nice guy and everything I just don’t wanna read all of it (did take a glance).

Wow but you post thread upon thread with pages and pages of study notes and you refuse to read mine . That’s says allot about you .

 

[atpollard]

The law of God is the wages of sin is death and all mankind sin but Jesus took all our sins on the cross and paid our sin debt and now we believers have eternal life.

See post #6.

 

[MatthewG]

Wow but you post thread upon thread with pages and pages of study notes and you refuse to read mine . That’s says allot about you .

You are right brother Im a chicken head, I don’t really expect people to read anything posted by me. It’s all there if they want to, may tag someone in it once in awhile it’s rare.

Would you like to summarize your finding of everything down for me?

 

[atpollard]

We are not the first people to ask these questions, so just for “conversation”, I offer a summary of the thoughts of theologians through the centuries that were all a lot smarter than me. What they thought is just “food for thought”, while what scripture says is the real test of truth … but only a fool ignores what everyone that came before had to say.

Why did Jesus die? - Seven Historic Theories on the Atonement:

1. The Moral Influence Theory: One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, who affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well).
2. The Ransom Theory: The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominant view) or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin.
3. Christus Victor: Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.
4. The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm): In the 12th century, Anselm of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory, Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin and to satisfy the justice of God.
5. The Penal Substitutionary Theory: Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of imputed righteousness is postulated.
6. The Governmental Theory: The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory, which is notably held in Methodism. The main difference here is the extent to which Christ suffered. In the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ suffers the punishment of our sin and propitiates God’s wrath. In this way, it is similar to Penal Substitution. However, in the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath. The Governmental Theory also teaches that Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are part of the church, you can take part in God’s salvation. The church then acts as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment. This view contrasts both the Penal and Satisfaction models but retains the fundamental belief that God cannot forgive if Jesus does not die a propitiating death.
7. The Scapegoat Theory: The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat. Here the key figures Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the Atonement Jesus Christ dies as the Scapegoat of humanity. This theory moves away from the idea that Jesus died in order to act upon God (as in PSA, Satisfaction, or Governmental), or as payment to the devil (as in Ransom). Scapegoating therefore is considered to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but a victim. There are many Philosophical concepts that come up within this model, but in a general sense, we can say that Jesus Christ as the Scapegoat means the following. 1) Jesus is killed by a violent crowd. 2) The violent crowd kills Him believing that He is guilty. 3) Jesus is proven innocent, as the true Son of God. 4) The crowd is therefore deemed guilty.

(if you want to read a little more from the source: 7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison )

 

[atpollard]

Because all your idea is designed to do is to try and detract from the Divinity of Lord Jesus Christ and the purity of His sacrifice upon His cross for the remission of sins of those who believe.

That’s pretty strong … definitely harshing my mellow. ;)

There is a faction that argues that God the Father is INCAPABLE of forgiving anyone of anything until and unless God has first gotten His “pound of flesh”. Is that really the God revealed in scripture? Imagine for a moment if men were called to follow that example … imagine if Jesus commanded us to “turn the other cheek … only after we had kicked the dog … because OUR WRATH had to be paid before forgiveness could be possible”.

My issues with “Penal Substitution” and the WRATH OF GOD POURED OUT ON CHRIST is that it teaches exactly that message … but generally just ASSUMES that scripture teaches it without even bothering to attempt to prove it with scripture.

• I have said and would say NOTHING against the DIVINITY of Christ … I am a Trinitarian.
  
• I have said and would say NOTHING against the PURITY of His sacrifice on the Cross … I am a blood bought Christian.

I just want to get something as important as WHY JESUS DIED biblically correct in all of the details … that requires clear scripture rather than just many people holding an opinion.

 

[atpollard]

He faced the full force of the Father's wrath on sin. The Law demanded it!

Where does the Law demand it?

From what I read, “the wages of sin is death” … so all the Law demanded was death (not torture).
The Priest did not inflict unnecessary pain on the lamb.
Was God angry at the Passover lamb?

 

[atpollard]

Charlie read my study on the topic if you have time with an open mind. I believed exactly like you for the past 40 years until I started studying this a few years ago. Thanks

I read it. Two thoughts:

Hated the length (but understood it was necessary).
Loved the focus on the LOVE & UNITY as the nature of God and prime force behind the atonement.

 

[ChristisGod]

I read it. Two thoughts:

Hated the length (but understood it was necessary).
Loved the focus on the LOVE & UNITY as the nature of God and prime force behind the atonement.

Thanks I studied and wrote it as if it was a thesis paper .

 

[atpollard]

The Son wouldn’t be punished for that, but he did pay for the sufferings of Sin.

What does that mean … “but he [Jesus] did pay for the sufferings of Sin”?
What are “the sufferings of Sin”?
What did Jesus pay and to whom?
(I am not challenging your statement, except to seek clarification of what you mean.)

 

[Charlie24]

We are not the first people to ask these questions, so just for “conversation”, I offer a summary of the thoughts of theologians through the centuries that were all a lot smarter than me. What they thought is just “food for thought”, while what scripture says is the real test of truth … but only a fool ignores what everyone that came before had to say.

Why did Jesus die? - Seven Historic Theories on the Atonement:

1. The Moral Influence Theory: One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, who affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well).
2. The Ransom Theory: The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominant view) or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin.
3. Christus Victor: Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.
4. The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm): In the 12th century, Anselm of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory, Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin and to satisfy the justice of God.
5. The Penal Substitutionary Theory: Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of imputed righteousness is postulated.
6. The Governmental Theory: The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory, which is notably held in Methodism. The main difference here is the extent to which Christ suffered. In the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ suffers the punishment of our sin and propitiates God’s wrath. In this way, it is similar to Penal Substitution. However, in the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath. The Governmental Theory also teaches that Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are part of the church, you can take part in God’s salvation. The church then acts as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment. This view contrasts both the Penal and Satisfaction models but retains the fundamental belief that God cannot forgive if Jesus does not die a propitiating death.
7. The Scapegoat Theory: The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat. Here the key figures Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the Atonement Jesus Christ dies as the Scapegoat of humanity. This theory moves away from the idea that Jesus died in order to act upon God (as in PSA, Satisfaction, or Governmental), or as payment to the devil (as in Ransom). Scapegoating therefore is considered to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but a victim. There are many Philosophical concepts that come up within this model, but in a general sense, we can say that Jesus Christ as the Scapegoat means the following. 1) Jesus is killed by a violent crowd. 2) The violent crowd kills Him believing that He is guilty. 3) Jesus is proven innocent, as the true Son of God. 4) The crowd is therefore deemed guilty.

(if you want to read a little more from the source: 7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison )

None of these theories give the reason for why Christ died. This is church dogma!

The plain truth as to why Christ had to die is that Adam and Eve directly disobeyed God in the Garden and fell from the state that they were created into sin. Now man has the knowledge of sin, has committed sin, and now must live in sin.

God spoke everything into existence, but He couldn't speak the atonement of man into existence. There had to be a Second Adam to undo what the first Adam had done. He had brought both physical and spiritual death to himself.

The only way out for man is to pay for his sin, but all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God, and God can not accept sinful man as a sacrifice for sin. So now it is hopeless for man, God demands the blood of man for his sin.

Lev. 17:11

" For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

The blood that God gave to man upon the alter to make atonement for his soul is the Blood of Christ. This is why Christ became man (the incarnation), that He as a man could shed His Blood for our sins to get us out of this mess called sin. There was no other way for man!

At this point in time, the Old Testament Law, the blood shed on the alter was animal blood that represented the coming Messiah who would shed His Blood for our sins. Faith in that blood represented faith in the Blood of Christ, which meant salvation and the forgiveness of sins. Although animal blood only covered the sin until Christ came and sacrificed Himself.

Much more to be said, but this is the simple truth as to why Christ had to die if man was to be saved.

 

[MatthewG]

No problem, will try to answer your question @atpollard,

He drank the cup of suffering. He also took on the sins of the world when he was getting beat before being taken to the cross.

Jesus paid the sins for the entire world, partly on behalf of them, also for the sins of those who believed and had faith on Him (especially the 12 tribes of Israel; Ie 144,000).

Matthew 20:22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered.

Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.​