Justice, Wrath, and Propitiation

This article almost reads like a response to the thread earlier in the week regarding the PCUSA’s view of the wrath of God.

Do you see how Bauder uses scripture to support all of his points except when it comes to his claim that Jesus bore God’s wrath. Then there is no scriptural support.

Grudem did the same thing.

I’m sticking with the Bible.

Mr. Sailer,

I do not wish to argue this point with you since I read the previous thread where I thought it was exhausted. But I do think it is important to point out that Dr. Bauder did use Scripture when referring to the wrath of God. No, it was not a “proof-text” But his point (if I understood correctly) was that the term “righteous” or “justice” obviously implies wrath. He clearly expressed that wrath is not petulant anger but execution of justice. Therefore on the cross, God executed justice on Christ for our sins, thus, since Divine wrath is the execution of justice as he is the only truly just one, his execution of justice was wrath for sin. Hence God the Father’s judgment deserved by sinners was expressed fully on Christ, God the Son.

It seemed to me he was using a logical progression

a. God’s wrath is the execution of his justice

b. God executed justice on Christ on the cross

therefore…

c. God expressed wrath on Christ on the cross

As I said, I am not arguing this point, although I hold to it firmly, but just that I thought that saying Dr. Bauder didn’t use Scripture simply because he didn’t proof-text that phrase, seems a little insufficient.

Grace.

Hopefully Sailer’s criticism above will be answered in Dr. Bauder’s next “In the Nick of Time” article. I like this article and will distribute it at church this Sunday. I’ve tried to talk about it from the pulpit, but the congregation’s eyes glaze over as soon as I mention “the wrath of God.”

[Matthew J]

Mr. Sailer,

I do not wish to argue this point with you since I read the previous thread where I thought it was exhausted. But I do think it is important to point out that Dr. Bauder did use Scripture when referring to the wrath of God. No, it was not a “proof-text” But his point (if I understood correctly) was that the term “righteous” or “justice” obviously implies wrath. He clearly expressed that wrath is not petulant anger but execution of justice. Therefore on the cross, God executed justice on Christ for our sins, thus, since Divine wrath is the execution of justice as he is the only truly just one, his execution of justice was wrath for sin. Hence God the Father’s judgment deserved by sinners was expressed fully on Christ, God the Son.

It seemed to me he was using a logical progression

a. God’s wrath is the execution of his justice

b. God executed justice on Christ on the cross

therefore…

c. God expressed wrath on Christ on the cross

As I said, I am not arguing this point, although I hold to it firmly, but just that I thought that saying Dr. Bauder didn’t use Scripture simply because he didn’t proof-text that phrase, seems a little insufficient.

Grace.

Except there is one problem. Romans 5:9-10 states that we are saved from the wrath of God through or in his life, not in his death. It is the righteous life of Christ that saves us from wrath. In fact, this statement is so important that Paul introduces it with the phrase “how much more” to make a contrast with the previous statement about being reconciled to God through the death of his Son.

Bauder does what everyone else does when claiming that Jesus bore God’s wrath, he is reading into scripture his own cultural bias or, at the very least, the cultural bias of the 16th century reformers. He takes a huge leap and claims that God’s justice requires that Jesus must bear God’s wrath. But the scriptures don’t state this.

Romans 3:25 explains why Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice. God passed over the sins committed previously in his forbearance. Animal sacrifices could not take away sins (Hebrews 10:4). So God gave his Son in love. He gave his Son to demonstrate his love for the world. He gave his Son as an atoning sacrifice - a sacrifice that takes away sin. And now God, who wants to forgive sins is right to forgive sins (1 John 1:9). This is how the sacrifice of Christ demonstrates his justice. There is no mention of wrath in Romans 3:25-26. The death of Christ satisfies the love and justice of God so that God, who is love, can rightfully (justly) justify those who have faith in Jesus.

Do you see the difference between Bauder’s interpretation and mine? I didn’t read into scripture what isn’t there.

Dr. Sailer

[jimfrank]

Hopefully Sailer’s criticism above will be answered in Dr. Bauder’s next “In the Nick of Time” article. I like this article and will distribute it at church this Sunday. I’ve tried to talk about it from the pulpit, but the congregation’s eyes glaze over as soon as I mention “the wrath of God.”

Hmmm. That’s interesting. Maybe they know intuitively that the wrath of God poured out on Jesus isn’t in the Bible.

I’ll say it again, if the Gospel is the most important message we can hear and receive, shouldn’t we discuss it and preach it using the terms and language of the Bible? For some reason, the scripture writers refused to attach “paid”, “penalty,” “punishment,” and “wrath” to the death of Christ. Why is that?

Dr. Sailer

In the context, His “life” is His resurrected life, which followed His substitutionary and propitiatory death. Jesus died because of my sin. The wages of sin is truly death, and Jesus bore the wrath of the Father against sin in my place. I am not saved by His good example, but by His shed blood. The example of Jesus’ life is an example for dedicated living, not for attaining redemption.

[Dick Dayton]

In the context, His “life” is His resurrected life, which followed His substitutionary and propitiatory death. Jesus died because of my sin. The wages of sin is truly death, and Jesus bore the wrath of the Father against sin in my place. I am not saved by His good example, but by His shed blood. The example of Jesus’ life is an example for dedicated living, not for attaining redemption.

You are not saved by his good example. Correct. You are saved from wrath by his righteous life that you have entered into by virtue of his atoning death. Christ’s death takes away our sins so that we can be reconciled. Christ’s life clothes us in his righteousness where there is no wrath.

Christ lived a sinless, righteous life. It is that life that we enter into. And with him, we are hidden in God!

Dick, can you explain to me why it is so easy for you to write these words, “Jesus bore the wrath of the Father against sin in my place,” but the scripture writers refused to write them? If what you say is right and correct. Why didn’t the scripture writers write it?

Don, can you explain to me it is so easy for me to write these words, “God is a Trinity, one God in three persons,” but the scripture writers refused to write them down? If what I am saying is right and correct, why didn’t the scripture writers write it?

Dr. Sailer, the last time I was in Romans I taught that God’s wrath was satisfied but did not state it as “laid upon Jesus.” That’s how I understand the term “propitiation” or the NIV’s “atoning sacrifice,” especially because of the footnote on Romans 3:24. Again, my hope is Dr. Bauder will write more on this subject. Hopefully we’re not “straining gnats and swallowing camels” here. This is a great discussion of critical importance, and if it causes me to go to the Bible in order to re-examine it, all the better. Hopefully none of us here are too jaded to learn something.

I think one of the benefits of this discussion with Don is that it shows we need to be careful about how we use language when describing biblical truths. As I mentioned in the other thread, I concede that “God’s wrath was poured out….”-type language is perhaps adding to what the Bible says about Christ’s sacrifice. Rather than waxing eloquent on how Christ paid for our sins on the Cross we need to stick to biblical language as closely as we can.

At the same time, some meanings are implicit in words which may not be obvious to us reading an English translation of a Hebrew and Greek Bible AND for those who did not grow up speaking Biblical Hebrew or koiné Greek. An example from today: the word “marriage” refers to the union of a man and a woman even if it cannot be proven etymologically. (Thus “gay marriage” makes as much sense as “atheist chaplain.”) Thus the terms “sacrifice,” “dying for sins,” “propitiation,” “ransom,” “justice,” etc. are theological words used in the context of the body of Scripture which assume that there is a price to be paid for sin. As Kevin’s article states, God’s wrath is a result of His justice. Sin has a wage which must be paid (Rom. 6:23).

Don, you have rightly stated that our sins were placed on Christ on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). However, in all your explanations you have not stated what that meant - if it doesn’t mean he bore our sins and received some kind of punishment from God in the process (the just “wage” for our sins). Simply saying “Christ bore our sins” may satisfy your desire to only “use biblical words” but it doesn’t give any meaning to those words. How did He bear them? Why did “bearing” them satisfy God? If He bore our sins, and the “wages of sin” is death (a punishment), would God be just if He didn’t punish those sins in some way?

And, what does it mean “Christ died for our sins?” (1 Cor. 15:3). If it only means that He suffered physical death at the hands of men, how is that any different than any other person who died on the cross in that day? If physical death was sufficient to pay for sins, then each person who was crucified by the Romans would have their own sins forgiven and therefore earn a place in heaven. Yes, Christ was sinless and did not have to die for His own sins, but if His physical death and suffering paid for our sins, it would follow that if someone suffered enough in death he could pay for his own sins.

I think most on SI would agree that in the Bible, death ≠ end of existence, but instead death = separation. And, that the Bible teaches there are three kinds of death:

1. physical death = separation of the soul/spirit from the physical body
2. spiritual death = separation of the person from God
3. second death = eternal separation of a person from God eternally in the Lake of Fire.

Christ paid for our sins by not just suffering physical death (something experienced by thousands of others during Roman time) but by also suffering spiritual death through a separation from the Father during His time on the cross - when the sins of the world were placed on him.

You have said you teach theology. I think all of us (almost all? ;-) ) would agree with the statement which was made in response to someone who believes he has discovered new truth that has not been found since the establishment of the Church 2000+ years ago: “If it’s new it probably is not true. If it is true it probably is not new.”

I think you need to reexamine your belief about this. If Christ did not in some pay for our sins by receiving the punishment or wrath of God, then they still remain unpaid and we are still under the same penalty as before our salvation.

I meant to post this here:

Don, I have been thinking about how to express this regarding Romans 3.

In your view, God never actually punishes sin for the believer. This is the problem your view has. God is not just in his dealing with sin, because he allows it to go unpunished. Basically you say that our slate was wiped clean if I understand you, but nothing was punished.

That is in hardcore opposition to everything we know about how God dealt with every manner of sin from the garden till the final judgment.

God had to punish sin in Christ to be just. That is Paul’s whole point. God’s wrath against sin (Rom 1) was dealt with in a just manner (Rom 3).

“Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.” (Isaiah 53:10,11)

[Greg Long]

Don, can you explain to me it is so easy for me to write these words, “God is a Trinity, one God in three persons,” but the scripture writers refused to write them down? If what I am saying is right and correct, why didn’t the scripture writers write it?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God… and the word became flesh and dwelt among us.

I and my Father are one.

Baptize in the “name” of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? “While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Hebrews 1:1-5 - You are my Son; today I have become your Father. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory.

Here, O Israel, the LORD our God is one.

So just off the top of my head I have shown from Scripture that God is one, that his name is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. So from the scriptures, using the scripture’s words the reader can deduce that God is one being, consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don’t even have to use the words three persons or trinity to explain who God is in the Bible. Using only scriptural language and terms I can state emphatically that God is one whose name is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Now you do for the concept of God’s wrath poured out on Jesus what I just did for the concept of the trinity.

See if you can find scripture that uses the words “paid, penalty, punishment, and wrath” for the atoning sacrifice or death of Christ.

[jimfrank]

Dr. Sailer, the last time I was in Romans I taught that God’s wrath was satisfied but did not state it as “laid upon Jesus.” That’s how I understand the term “propitiation” or the NIV’s “atoning sacrifice,” especially because of the footnote on Romans 3:24. Again, my hope is Dr. Bauder will write more on this subject. Hopefully we’re not “straining gnats and swallowing camels” here. This is a great discussion of critical importance, and if it causes me to go to the Bible in order to re-examine it, all the better. Hopefully none of us here are too jaded to learn something.

Thank you, Jim.