Justice, Wrath, and Propitiation

[MShep2]

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.

Thank you for your thoughts.

What happens to the tone of your comments if you remove the word “paid” in your argument, a word not used in scripture, and replace it with “expiated” or any of the other terms or phrases used in Scripture such as “takes away the sin of the world”?

If Jesus takes our sins away on the cross by carrying our sins on his body and covering/expiating our sins in his blood, then he does not need to be separated from his Father during his time on the cross. In fact, the Gospels record Jesus talking and communing with his Father throughout the ordeal. And of course, God did not despise or disdain the suffering of the afflicted one. He has not hidden his face from him (Psalm 22:24). No one has shown why this verse should be set aside for the concepts of “separation” from God and “God’s wrath poured out on Jesus.” And no one has shown why we shouldn’t just accept the words of Jesus that his Father would be with him when he was lifted up on the cross. Jesus said that he would not be alone (John 8:29, John 16:32). It is beyond me why adherents to the “wrath” theory don’t give it up in light of Jesus’ own words.

By the way, what I am suggesting regarding the atoning sacrifice is not some new theory but the position of the church for the first 1000 years of its history.

No one can die for his own sins. We are not sinless. We cannot make atonement for our own sins. Animals could not make atonement for our sins (Hebrews 10:4). Only a sinless, perfect Lamb can take our sins away (John 1:29, Hebrews 10:11-12). By carrying our sins on his body, Jesus’ blood shed for us can cover them or take them away. He poured out his blood for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28). Doesn’t this explain why he bore our sins upon his body? so that he could take them away? so that he could forgive our sins?

[Don Sailer]

[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.

BTW, Don, I hope you believe more about God than just that He is “one whose name is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” We believe in more than one God with three names.

See if you can find scripture that uses the words “person, being, and Trinity” in reference to the nature of God.

[James K]

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).

Does not Romans 6:23 teach that the wages of sin is death? Do we not all die? Isn’t the punishment for sin still occurring daily among us, both for saints and sinners? The last time I checked everyone still dies. The punishment for sin is death, and we do die. So God does punish sin for the believer and the sinner. Both die. God does not have to punish sin in Christ to be just because sin is already punished by death. That is Paul’s whole point, by the trespass of the one man sin has entered into the world, and “death through sin” (Romans 5:12). So the punishment for sin is death and condemnation (Romans 5:18).

Now the barrier to entering into a relationship with God is our sin or unrighteousness. Now Paul, citing David in Psalm 22:1-2 states, “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him” (Romans 4:7-8).

How does this take place? By God punishing Christ to conform to the law? Or does this occur through the righteous life of Christ outside of the law?

Romans 4:13-15 states, “It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.”

You won’t be able to grasp the truth of these verses until you set aside your preconceived ideas about what God must do. These verses state unambiguously that the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

The promise is fulfilled through the righteousness that comes by faith so that it might be by grace to all of Abraham’s offspring. That includes us (Romans 4:13-16).

There is no mention of punishment in this section of Scripture. Where there is no law there is no transgression. And so we believe in God “who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were” (Romans 4:17).

Now do we receive the promise of eternal life through the law or outside of the law? Are we the seed of Abraham through the law or outside of the law? Do we have the righteousness of Christ through the law or outside of the law? And if outside, then there is no wrath, for it is the law that brings wrath. But the promise of being the seed of Abraham occurs outside of the law (Romans 4:13).

Therefore, Christ died for us outside of the law. He died for us because God loves us. And the amazing thing is, even though we are sinners, Christ still died for us. Which leads us into Romans 5:9-10 where we see that we are saved from wrath through or in his life, not his death. It is the righteous life of Christ outside of the law that saves us from wrath when we are in Christ. Why? Because there is no wrath in Christ. He is righteous.

Now will you use the language of Scripture to describe what the death of Christ accomplished? Because Romans 5 makes a contrast between the “trespass” of Adam and the “gift” of Jesus Christ. The trespass brings death, judgment, and condemnation; the gift brings justification. Then Paul states, “For if , by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ” (v. 17).

The gift is the Son (John 3:16). The gift is given outside of the law. The gift is God’s grace reigning through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 5:21).

Now if we reject the gift, we are condemned already (John 3:17). But if we accept the gift, even though we still die, we receive eternal life in Christ through his righteous, obedient life (Romans 6:23, Romans 5:18-19).

Amazing.

God didn’t have to punish sin in Christ to be just; God had to take our sins away in Christ to be just.

Don, as you argue, we are saved by the righteousness of Christ. I agree with that, but it isn’t enough. First off, I am not a calvinist who must toe the line so that dead reformers don’t frown on them from heaven. Too many live in that fear.

If the wages of sin is death, and Christ died on our behalf, then Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Jesus said that the one who believes in Him will never die. The consequence of sin wasn’t just that your body would stop functioning. So the believer does not die like the unbeliever does.

[Greg Long]

[Don Sailer]

[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.

I and others already have, Don, several times (for example, Is. 53…AGAIN). That was the whole point of Dr. Bauder’s blog post. But just to emphasize the point, you were requiring others to use EXACT language regarding the wrath of God poured out in the death of Christ, while not holding other doctrines to the same standard. While I agree with everything you just posted, you still did not provide me with a verse that says God is one being in three persons.

BTW, Don, I hope you believe more about God than just that He is “one whose name is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” We believe in more than one God with three names.

See if you can find scripture that uses the words “person, being, and Trinity” in reference to the nature of God.

The Bible refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by using personal pronouns.

[James K]

Don, as you argue, we are saved by the righteousness of Christ. I agree with that, but it isn’t enough. First off, I am not a calvinist who must toe the line so that dead reformers don’t frown on them from heaven. Too many live in that fear.

If the wages of sin is death, and Christ died on our behalf, then Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Jesus said that the one who believes in Him will never die. The consequence of sin wasn’t just that your body would stop functioning. So the believer does not die like the unbeliever does.

James,

Why do you have to use language that is not in the Bible to describe the death of Christ. Isn’t it enough that Jesus died for our sins to take them away?

Maybe you will answer this question for me. Why didn’t the scripture writers use the phrase you just used? If Jesus died to pay the penalty for sin, why didn’t they just write this?

Can’t Jesus die motivated by love for us? Can’t the gift of righteousness in Christ take away our sin without God punishing him?

The scriptures emphasize God’s love for sinners and God’s integrity not to forgive sinners unless a sacrifice could be given that actually takes away sin. Why is this not enough?

Don, can you show me the verses that show that each person in the trinity is equal to the other, equally God, yet a separate person, and that the three have each existed from all eternity? What if someone were to say that the Father existed first. Then he created the Son, and then the Spirit? Which verse says the three have existed from all eternity, and each is equally God?

[christian cerna]

Don, can you show me the verses that show that each person in the trinity is equal to the other, equally God, yet a separate person, and that the three have each existed from all eternity? What if someone were to say that the Father existed first. Then he created the Son, and then the Spirit? Which verse says the three have existed from all eternity, and each is equally God?

I can find passages in the OT that demonstrate that YHWH is the Father, others that YHWH is the Son, and still others that show that YHWH is the Spirit.

Why don’t you find them for me and we will discuss it.

Don:

I find your tone on this discussion to be … less than charitable and rather dismissive of a very important discussion, especially in engaging men with more theological standing than you seem to possess. You argue as if you alone have the biblical high ground and Bauder, et al are merely parroting old worn theological notions of a by-gone era that are wholly without substance. Bauder and Grudem have simply ignored the Bible in your view.

This subject has been the focus of vigorous debate in Christianity for many hundreds of years and it is not simply an argument from biblical texts. Theology seldom is. Biblical texts must cohere with each other as well as in our minds. There are important theological as well as biblical ideas to weigh and juxtapose. Other important doctrines are similarly debated … e.g. the Trinity.

In your response today to James, you ask

“Can’t Jesus die motivated by love for us? Can’t the gift of righteousness in Christ take away our sin without God punishing him?

The scriptures emphasize God’s love for sinners and God’s integrity not to forgive sinners unless a sacrifice could be given that actually takes away sin. Why is this not enough?”

The answer is a simple NO! Jesus cannot die motivated by love alone. He is BOTH a God of love and one of justice … His love is a justly applied love and his justice is a lovingly applied justice. For the Father to forgive sins without payment of his own prescribed penalty is not justice. Rom 3:23 the wages of sin is death … Death is not merely the natural consequence of sin but its is the necessary forensic consequence. Humanity dies because it deserves to die as rebels and sinners. Sin demands punishment. Jesus willingly and lovingly paid this divine punish to satisfy the justice of God. What do you suppose Christ meant when he cried out on the cross “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

I for one am grateful that the song was not emended for the sake of the song book. I appeal to you to tone down your rhetoric and make a careful study of historical theology to see who espouses your view and where it leads. You are headed in a seriously flawed theological direction with this assault the penal substitution.

Jeff Straub

I’m enjoying this “discussion” very much. It challenges me. I once watched a Battle Royal which saw Andre’ the Giant battling 9 other behemoth’s. Even as they ganged up on Andre’ they were never quite able to throw him over the top rope. Sorry Jeff Straub, Don’s argument has been weighty enough to keep him in the ring. The fact that y’all keep bouncing off him amuses me like that wrestling event in the Boylan High School gym. And the fact that you trotted out “I find your tone on this discussion to be … less than charitable and rather dismissive of a very important discussion, especially in engaging men with more theological standing than you seem to possess” makes me think you just gave up.

This question is too important to digress into personal attacks or “your credentials are lacking” attacks. Don has made a serious point. “Where in the Scripture does it say God poured out His wrath on Jesus? And equally important, “If it is not said in scripture, why do we teach it?” Bauder, et al. are not infallible.

So Don Sailer is Andre the Giant, and bouncing off of him are Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory the Great, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Francis Turretin, John Bunyan, John Owen, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, John R. W. Stott, J. I. Packer (see Jeffery, Ovey, & Sach, Pierced for Our Trangressions, p. 161-200 for documentation for all the above listed names), Louis Berkhof, John MacArthur, John Piper, Charles Ryrie, Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Louis Sperry Chafer, R. C. Sproul, Millard Erickson, Mark Dever, Wayne Grudem, and Kevin Bauder, all who taught/teach penal substitionary atonement (that Christ bore the punishment from God our sins deserve and was cursed on our behalf), just to name a few?

[Jeff Straub]

Don:

I find your tone on this discussion to be … less than charitable and rather dismissive of a very important discussion, especially in engaging men with more theological standing than you seem to possess. You argue as if you alone have the biblical high ground and Bauder, et al are merely parroting old worn theological notions of a by-gone era that are wholly without substance. Bauder and Grudem have simply ignored the Bible in your view.

This subject has been the focus of vigorous debate in Christianity for many hundreds of years and it is not simply an argument from biblical texts. Theology seldom is. Biblical texts must cohere with each other as well as in our minds. There are important theological as well as biblical ideas to weigh and juxtapose. Other important doctrines are similarly debated … e.g. the Trinity.

In your response today to James, you ask

“Can’t Jesus die motivated by love for us? Can’t the gift of righteousness in Christ take away our sin without God punishing him?

The scriptures emphasize God’s love for sinners and God’s integrity not to forgive sinners unless a sacrifice could be given that actually takes away sin. Why is this not enough?”

The answer is a simple NO! Jesus cannot die motivated by love alone. He is BOTH a God of love and one of justice … His love is a justly applied love and his justice is a lovingly applied justice. For the Father to forgive sins without payment of his own prescribed penalty is not justice. Rom 3:23 the wages of sin is death … Death is not merely the natural consequence of sin but its is the necessary forensic consequence. Humanity dies because it deserves to die as rebels and sinners. Sin demands punishment. Jesus willingly and lovingly paid this divine punish to satisfy the justice of God. What do you suppose Christ meant when he cried out on the cross “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

I for one am grateful that the song was not emended for the sake of the song book. I appeal to you to tone down your rhetoric and make a careful study of historical theology to see who espouses your view and where it leads. You are headed in a seriously flawed theological direction with this assault the penal substitution.

Jeff Straub

Thank you, Jeff, for admitting that it is your theory of penal substitution that causes you to support a concept not found in the scriptures. I was waiting for someone to acknowledge this.

Jesus does not need to be punished for our sins. We already are punished for our sins. We have died spiritually and we are dying physically. We are walking dead men and we are condemned already. See Romans 5:12-13, 16, 18; John 3:17. Therefore, Jesus did not die to be punished for our sins. We have already died. And if we die a physical death outside of Christ, our present condemnation will be eternal.

Perhaps this is why, every time the scripture writers have the opportunity to say “Jesus paid the penalty for sin,” they pull up and refuse to make this statement.

I have answered the rest of the issues you raised elsewhere. Jesus was not forsaken by God.

[Greg Long]

So Don Sailer is Andre the Giant, and bouncing off of him are Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory the Great, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Francis Turretin, John Bunyan, John Owen, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, John R. W. Stott, J. I. Packer (see Jeffery, Ovey, & Sach, Pierced for Our Trangressions, p. 161-200 for documentation for all the above listed names), Louis Berkhof, John MacArthur, John Piper, Charles Ryrie, Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Louis Sperry Chafer, R. C. Sproul, Millard Erickson, Mark Dever, Wayne Grudem, and Kevin Bauder, all who taught/teach penal substitionary atonement (that Christ bore the punishment from God our sins deserve and was cursed on our behalf), just to name a few?

No, Greg, I’m just standing with the Apostles Paul, Peter, John and the unknown author of Hebrews. I’m also standing with David and Isaiah.

Like I said, Greg, I’m sticking with Scripture and the scripture writers.

It’s funny Greg Long that I find you the most offended by Don. So just definitively refute him. Should be easy if all your heroes have given you the ammo.

Already have, Jeffrey, several times. But I really can’t improve upon anything Dr. Bauder wrote in the OP.