PCUSA uncomfortable with phrase "Till on that cross as Jesus died / the wrath of God was satisfied."

Calvin says the Lord was pleased that He should suffer.

Don,

Love is not “satisfied.” Love is expressed. Justice must be satisfied. God expressed His love for us by offering up Himself, in the person of His Son, to satisfy the full demands of His justice against our sin.

I’m having a hard time understanding why you are unable to accept this truth, since it is clearly stated in the very verses you are quoting (as well as in others):

1 Jn. 4:10: “He loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins”

Rom. 3:25: “God put him forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”

1 Jn. 2:2: “He is the propitiation for our sins”

What do you think the word “propitiation” means, if not the satisfaction of God’s justice (which is inseparably bound up with His wrath?)

Thanks for saying that. I was going to do that last night but got distracted and forgot. I agree that there is some serious confusion over definitions of terms here with Don.

I will quote at length from a well-respected exegetical commentary on Isaiah, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, on Is 53:10-12.

This final stanza of the poem answers many of the questions that have been raised thus far. The answers remain somewhat opaque and mysterious, but there is still a sense of denouement and rounding-out that brings the composition to a satisfactory conclusion. Above all, the question has been, What is the meaning of this innocent man’s submissive suffering in the place of sinners? Why is he doing it, and how can he do it? Is it all an accident of history?

To these questions and others this stanza gives the answers. Above everything else it makes it clear that this person’s tragic story was not an accident of history, a good person in the wrong time and in the wrong place. Moreover, it shows that this suffering was not one aspect of this person’s ministry. His purpose in living and dying was that through him (not through his message) persons might have their sins atoned for and come to know the righteousness of God. Only when people make a sin offering of him is the point of the whole operation realized; then he can breathe a sigh of satisfaction. As a result of all of this, this twisted, forgotten, broken man will one day wear the victor’s wreath, and all the other victors will throw theirs down at his feet.

10. The verse opens with a disjunctive waw that expresses a contrast with the previous verses. How could these tragic miscarriages of justic have happened? Perhaps the Preacher would have said, “It is just part of the meaninglessness of this life under the sun!” (Eccl. 4:1-3, etc.). But Isaiah says, “Not at all! God wanted this to happen! It is no accident — it is his will!” But in some ways that is the worst answer of all. God wanted to crush (cf. v. 5) this man? God wanted to visit terrible pain (cf. v. 4) on him? Surely not. The faithful God of the Bible would certainly not visit bad things on innocent people, would he? Yes, he would if some greater good would be served (cf. Job). Is it possible there is some greater good that all the terrible things the Servant has endured will procure? What could possibly be worth all that? It would certainly have to be something of monumental proportion.

As it happens, what God wants to come out of the Servant’s suffering is of monumental proportions. He wants human beings to be able to offer this man up on the altar of their sins so that he can be a “full and sufficient sacrifice” (Book of Common Prayer, Ritual for Communion) for them, satisfying all the unpaid debts of their behavior, debts they could never hope to pay, but debts that if left unpaid would stand forever between them and a just God. (p. 400)

Tyndale OT Commentary on Isaiah 53:4:

He was indeed stricken by God, but with the astonishing purpose of laying our sin on him.

[Mark_Smith]

what I and, if I may be so bold, many here are saying is that contained in the word propitiation is the concept of God’s wrath being applied to Jesus in His death on the cross. We know this from verses like Isaiah 53 which you keep claiming is poetry and not literal. Jesus bore our sins in His own body on the tree. What does that mean UNLESS it means that the sin and the consequences, including death and the wrath of God, were substituted onto Jesus from us?

Let me try a poor analogy since you seem to shield yourself from standard interpretations of Scripture. What I am saying is I am guilty of a capital crime. I am sentenced to death as the wrath from the people represented by the government against me for my crimes. Jesus, in love, steps in, assumes my position and my guilt with His name being placed on my guilty verdict, and takes the death penalty for me though He was innocent. In this sense the wrath of the government is poured on Jesus. As a result I am counted to have died with Christ and I am set free. It would be double jeopardy to execute me.

What you seem to be saying is that Jesus steps in my place, but doesn’t take any of the blame, He is just killed in my place. In that case all the government did is kill the wrong guy! I am still responsible for my crimes!

I hesitate with an analogy because I don’t want to slip into heresey…but let’s give it a shot.

Thank you, Mark, for your post.

I can’t enter into your analogy because I’m attempting to deal with what the Scriptures state and not what we project onto the scriptures. With regard to poetry, the language is not as precise as epistles. It does not mean that the poetry is not literal, or that one cannot understand the sweeping flow of the poetry. But poetry is less propositional and more emotional. By the way, the Bible states that the wages of sin is death. It does not state that the wages of sin is wrath. The “punishment” for sin is death. The punishment for refusing to believe in Christ is eternal, conscious torment.

I believe that the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23

I believe that God paid the penalty for sin by providing the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. John 3:16, John 1:29

I believe that every person who believes in the atoning sacrifice for sins (Jesus) is justified by God. Romans 3:21-26

I believe that God reconciled the world to himself in Jesus Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. 2 Cor. 5:19

I believe that it was God’s love that was magnified and demonstrated when Jesus died. Romans 5:8

I believe that it is God’s love for the world that prompted him to send Jesus into this world to be an atoning sacrifice. John 3:16, 1 John 4:10

I believe that those who believe in Christ receive forgiveness of sins and his righteousness. 1 John 1:9, Romans 5:17

I believe that those who reject the sacrifice of Christ can expect a fearful expectation of judgment. Hebrews 10:26-31

I believe that Jesus was a sin offering and that he carried our sins upon his body. Isaiah 53, 1 Peter 2:22, 2 Cor. 5:21

I believe that God did not despise or disdain the suffering of the afflicted one (Jesus). Psalm 22:24

I believe that God did not turn his face from Jesus when he died. Psalm 22:24

I believe that God’s face was upon Jesus during the crucifixion. Psalm 34:15-20

I believe that God the Father and God the Son were in full and constant communion on the cross. The Gospels

[Greg Long]

Tyndale OT Commentary on Isaiah 53:4:

He was indeed stricken by God, but with the astonishing purpose of laying our sin on him.

Right, Greg. I’ve already made this point. God let the iniquities of us all strike him. Our translations interpret the word pawgaw in the hif. tense as “laid.”

The poetic repetition of the concept “strike” is very interesting. Jesus was stricken by our very sins as God laid them on him or struck him with them. There is no denying that our sins were carried by Jesus or taken up by him on his body. He was stricken with our very sins. The English translations mute this.

As you and I both agree, Jesus didn’t die for his own sins, he died for our sins. The cup of the New Covenant required that when Jesus died for us he would be stricken by the iniquities of us all.

Yes, Jesus died for our sins. He died an expiatory sacrifice. His death was the sacrifice of atonement that covered our sins in his blood.

Blessings.

[blee25]

Galatians 3:13 seems to be a pretty clear statement.

In verse 10 Paul tells us we are under a curse because because we have broken God’s law. Is the curse not God’s judgment on our sin? Then in verse 13 Paul says Christ has redeemed us from the curse we are under by becoming a curse for us.

God cursed me because of my sin but I have been redeemed because Christ took the curse in my place.

Correct. And the curse was death. And we all agree that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. The Jews considered him stricken by God. They viewed him as guilty even though he was sinless.

Now saying that Jesus died for us is not the same thing as saying that God poured out his wrath on Jesus.

Blessings.

[Mark_Smith]

you seem to believe in Jesus COVERING (ie atoning, expiating) sin rather than taking it away. Am I correct?

Hi Mark,

I believe that Jesus’ death covered our sins by his blood and therefore they are expiated, forgiven, and taken away. Because Jesus is a sin offering, God does not count our sins against us. They are covered by the blood. Those who put their faith in Christ are forgiven of their sins. Jesus, the Lamb of God, takes our sins away.

Blessings.

[Brandon Crawford]

Don,

Love is not “satisfied.” Love is expressed. Justice must be satisfied. God expressed His love for us by offering up Himself, in the person of His Son, to satisfy the full demands of His justice against our sin.

I’m having a hard time understanding why you are unable to accept this truth, since it is clearly stated in the very verses you are quoting (as well as in others):

1 Jn. 4:10: “He loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins”

Rom. 3:25: “God put him forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”

1 Jn. 2:2: “He is the propitiation for our sins”

What do you think the word “propitiation” means, if not the satisfaction of God’s justice (which is inseparably bound up with His wrath?)

I don’t disagree with anything that you wrote.

God’s justice was satisfied in the expiatory death of Christ. Sins in the past were passed over because of God’s forbearance. But now that the sacrifice of atonement has been provided in Christ, God is just and righteous to forgive sin and justify those who believe in him (1 John 1:9, Romans 3:21-26). We agree. God’s love demonstrated in his gift of the sacrifice justifies those who believe. And God is right to do this because Jesus’ death takes away sin (Hebrews 10:4, 11-12). And in this sense, God’s wrath is turned away from us.

As to the word “hilasmos,” Jesus died for our sins. The direction of the word is toward our sins, not toward God. Over and over again the Bible states that Jesus died for us or for our sins. So what does hilasmos mean when directed toward us or toward our sins? It means that the atoning sacrifice of Christ expiated our sins.

Blessings.

[Mark_Smith]

Thanks for saying that. I was going to do that last night but got distracted and forgot. I agree that there is some serious confusion over definitions of terms here with Don.

It depends on whose definition you are going to use. Does hilasmos mean propitiation or does it mean expiation?

God wants to forgive sin. God is love. God cannot forgive sin based on animal sacrifices. So he passed over them in his forbearance. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus expiates sin. It covers sin. It takes away sin. Now God is right and just in forgiving the sins of those who believe in him. So now God’s love is satisfied in that he can do what he desires to do. The death of Jesus satisfies his love by making it possible (right, just) for God to forgive sinners.

[Don Sailer]

[blee25]

Galatians 3:13 seems to be a pretty clear statement.

In verse 10 Paul tells us we are under a curse because because we have broken God’s law. Is the curse not God’s judgment on our sin? Then in verse 13 Paul says Christ has redeemed us from the curse we are under by becoming a curse for us.

God cursed me because of my sin but I have been redeemed because Christ took the curse in my place.

Correct. And the curse was death. And we all agree that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. The Jews considered him stricken by God. They viewed him as guilty even though he was sinless.

Now saying that Jesus died for us is not the same thing as saying that God poured out his wrath on Jesus.

Blessings.

Don the curse is not death, per se. The curse is death as punishment. In other words, 3:10 says we are cursed for our sins. 3:13 says Christ became our curse through his being killed as punishment on our behalf.

Was Jesus killed as a punishment? If he was, why wouldn’t it make sense to understand this as a punishment because of God’s wrath and one that satisfied God’s wrath?

1 Pet. 3:18 says Christ suffered once **for sins**. And further elaborates, “the righteous for the unrighteous.” That seems pretty clear that he took our punishment that was deserved for our sins. If he did, that means he took a punishment - he was punished - he was under God’s wrath.

[Greg Long]

I will quote at length from a well-respected exegetical commentary on Isaiah, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, on Is 53:10-12.

This final stanza of the poem answers many of the questions that have been raised thus far. The answers remain somewhat opaque and mysterious, but there is still a sense of denouement and rounding-out that brings the composition to a satisfactory conclusion. Above all, the question has been, What is the meaning of this innocent man’s submissive suffering in the place of sinners? Why is he doing it, and how can he do it? Is it all an accident of history?

To these questions and others this stanza gives the answers. Above everything else it makes it clear that this person’s tragic story was not an accident of history, a good person in the wrong time and in the wrong place. Moreover, it shows that this suffering was not one aspect of this person’s ministry. His purpose in living and dying was that through him (not through his message) persons might have their sins atoned for and come to know the righteousness of God. Only when people make a sin offering of him is the point of the whole operation realized; then he can breathe a sigh of satisfaction. As a result of all of this, this twisted, forgotten, broken man will one day wear the victor’s wreath, and all the other victors will throw theirs down at his feet.

10. The verse opens with a disjunctive waw that expresses a contrast with the previous verses. How could these tragic miscarriages of justic have happened? Perhaps the Preacher would have said, “It is just part of the meaninglessness of this life under the sun!” (Eccl. 4:1-3, etc.). But Isaiah says, “Not at all! God wanted this to happen! It is no accident — it is his will!” But in some ways that is the worst answer of all. God wanted to crush (cf. v. 5) this man? God wanted to visit terrible pain (cf. v. 4) on him? Surely not. The faithful God of the Bible would certainly not visit bad things on innocent people, would he? Yes, he would if some greater good would be served (cf. Job). Is it possible there is some greater good that all the terrible things the Servant has endured will procure? What could possibly be worth all that? It would certainly have to be something of monumental proportion.

As it happens, what God wants to come out of the Servant’s suffering is of monumental proportions. He wants human beings to be able to offer this man up on the altar of their sins so that he can be a “full and sufficient sacrifice” (Book of Common Prayer, Ritual for Communion) for them, satisfying all the unpaid debts of their behavior, debts they could never hope to pay, but debts that if left unpaid would stand forever between them and a just God. (p. 400)

Yes, God wanted this person to suffer and die. We agree. I’m not sure what point of disagreement we have here. I’ve already pointed out Acts 2:23. But as you pointed out in the commentary by Calvin. God was pleased that the Son suffered and died because of the cause/effect aspects of his death. Isaiah 53:10-12 is a major shift in the passage as evidenced by the disjunctive waw. The “yet” of verse 10 indicates that even though this man died an unjust death, and even though you considered him stricken by God, and even though he didn’t deserve to die, yet it was according to the plan of God and it pleased God precisely because of the effect it would have.

That God “willed” that the Son die and planned for his death does not mean that God killed his Son or that God punished his Son or that God poured out his wrath on his Son. Acts 2:23 declares that it was sinful, wicked men who put Jesus to death. It was God who raised him from the dead (v. 24). That God was pleased that the death of Christ would result in the justification of many is affirmed. God desires that none perish. So certainly God is pleased in the sacrifice of his Son for the remission of sins. But that is a far cry from claiming that God himself bruised and beat his Son.

Are you still trying to claim that God beat and bruised his Son?

[Bob Hayton]

[Don Sailer]

[blee25]

Galatians 3:13 seems to be a pretty clear statement.

In verse 10 Paul tells us we are under a curse because because we have broken God’s law. Is the curse not God’s judgment on our sin? Then in verse 13 Paul says Christ has redeemed us from the curse we are under by becoming a curse for us.

God cursed me because of my sin but I have been redeemed because Christ took the curse in my place.

Correct. And the curse was death. And we all agree that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. The Jews considered him stricken by God. They viewed him as guilty even though he was sinless.

Now saying that Jesus died for us is not the same thing as saying that God poured out his wrath on Jesus.

Blessings.

Don the curse is not death, per se. The curse is death as punishment. In other words, 3:10 says we are cursed for our sins. 3:13 says Christ became our curse through his being killed as punishment on our behalf.

Was Jesus killed as a punishment? If he was, why wouldn’t it make sense to understand this as a punishment because of God’s wrath and one that satisfied God’s wrath?

1 Pet. 3:18 says Christ suffered once **for sins**. And further elaborates, “the righteous for the unrighteous.” That seems pretty clear that he took our punishment that was deserved for our sins. If he did, that means he took a punishment - he was punished - he was under God’s wrath.

It’s a good question, Bob.

If Jesus was punished for our sins in the sense that he was the recipient of God’s wrath, why doesn’t the Bible just say so. How difficult would it have been for the writers of Scripture to say, Jesus was punished for our sins and took God’s wrath upon himself?

Was Jesus punished or did he suffer? If he gave himself up for us as an offering and sacrifice, is that punishment or suffering? Is there a reason why the scriptures just don’t come out and state that Jesus was punished for our sins? Wouldn’t this whole discussion end rather quickly if we could just turn to 1 Peter 3:18 and read about how Christ was punished for our sins, bore God’s wrath - the righteous for the unrighteous. I marvel that this is not the case. And I’m not so quick to import my views of right, wrong, punishment, etc. into the text of Scripture.

Was he killed as punishment? Or was he offered as sacrifice? If he was offered as sacrifice, wouldn’t the focus be on the love of the one who offered the sacrifice? Isn’t this what we actually see in Scripture? Don’t the scriptures emphasize the love of God in providing the sacrifice? Don’t they emphasize the love of Christ in laying down his life for his friends?

Why the need to import into scripture the concept of wrath where it isn’t found?

As to the “curse” of Galatians 3:10, the context relates the curse to being unjustified before God. Christ redeemed us and justified us by becoming a “curse” for us. And in this context, it means that he died for us so that by his death we could be justified.

Did God physically and personally take the scourge and scourge Jesus? Did God physically and personally beat Jesus? Did God physically and personally nail him to the cross? Nobody is arguing that, Don. Nobody means that when they say God poured out his wrath on Jesus. Nobody means that when they say that God punished Jesus. You are arguing against something nobody says.

Did God cause the events involved in the death of Christ so that it can be said that he “was pleased…to bruise Him”? Yes. But why? That’s what the commentary I quoted answers. To satisfy the punishment for sin and to appease his justice/wrath.

I think you have a confused understanding of God’s wrath.