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

[James K]

The “cup” that Jesus had to drink, was the “cup” of God’s wrath. In the Garden, Jesus proved that there was no other way to bring about salvation than for Him to receive upon His death the wrath of God. That is why unbelievers will experience the full force of the “cup” of God’s wrath in the eschaton.

James,

You didn’t cite any scriptures to back up your statement.

This same Jesus who allegedly believes that he is forsaken by God and the recipient of God’s wrath believed that God would be with him when he was lifted up on the cross, believed that God was pleased with him, and entrusted his spirit to the Father. There is nothing in the crucifixion setting that suggests that Jesus thought that he was experiencing the wrath of God.

Blessings.

[Joel Tetreau]

Don,

Your question while surprising is fair. Admitidly I’m not used to having to defend Biblical orthodoxy that has been codified by the orthodox for hundreds if not thousands of years….but we say that the Bible is the final authority of faith and practice ….. so be it.

So the concept of the wrath of God being poured out on Christ or those judged without the benefit of atonement - is explicit and implicit in the various classical texts.

Let me say that just like one doesn’t have the exact word “deacon” in Acts 6 - most believe them to be “proto-deacons.” In a similar sense while the exact word “wrath on Christ” may not show up word for word - the concept is seen both in context and sense.

Just about every theological text both evangelical, catholic and otherwise understands “Propitiation” to include an “appeasing of one’s wrath.” Actually the most literal definition is “to cover.” Well to cover what? So notice Romans 3:25; 5:1, 10-11; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; Colossians 1:20-22; 1 John 2:2; Hebrews 9:5. So for most Biblical students and teachers these verses coupled with the term and how this is played out in the OT sacrificial system and then how that’s combined with what Christ did as described in Hebrews leads most of us to the conclusion that this “propituation” is the appeasment of wrath. God’s wrath was poured out and appeased by Jesus. Clearly.

So Don - check out some OT passages - I’m not sure how proficient you are with Hebrew but I love the words we have in Deuteronomy 9:18 and 19. Man if you can’t see “anger” and “wrath” especially in verse 19. Notice the tense of those tems in verse 19 - man that action is on steroids in the text. Emphatic! I think one of those terms cary’s the idea of “fury.”

A few Greek words and context (Some of this Tetreau paraphrase) - Hebrews 2:17 - “To make propitiations for the sins of the people.” The context marks out a presence of wrath, the need for mercy, concern for sin, etc…..The Greek word is “Hilaskomai.” (every lexicon I know connects this to wrath). I think one of the brothers mentioned the Romans passage - let’s look at it. Romans 3:25. Again the term is “Hilasterion.” “Whome God displayed publicaly as a propitition in His blood.” Don - how in the world you can’t connect the concept of wrath and judgment appeased temporarily by the sacrifice of the OT and now fulfilled in this appeasment of that wrath by Jesus via the context of Romans 3? Another text and word - Hilasmos - 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10 - powerful is the Johannine Christology here - looks at the flow of context you have the “blood” in 1:7 - you have the nned for this appeasment (Hilsmos) and this is accomplished by the Advocate (2:1).

To be clear - I disagree with Mr. Scofield who unfortunatly spread the notion that “propititation has not thought of placating a vengeful God…..” Mr. Scofield are out of the majority here that have seen a connect between propitation and the wrath of God being satisfied by Christ’s atonement.

Fankly I believe you gut the doctrines of God’s holiness, judgment, and even “satisfaction” without the wrath part. By the way - I don’t think I hold this view because I’m a ticked off fundamentalist!

Let me dip into systematic theology - now much to the desmay of some of my systematic teachers I have always sung the song of Biblical theology over Systematic theology. Having said that - there is a place and a benefit of comparing Scripture with Scripture (i.e. Systematic theology). You understand that without at least a basic approach to sys theology we would not have the understanding of the Trinity as we do. So let’s string some verses together - yes each verse has a context but I’m positive if you string the verses (and their contexts together) we are not undermining the idea of God’s wrath being poured out on Christ but we see a strengthening of this view.

Isaiah 59:2 - iniquity causes separation from God; Nahum 1:2 - God is avenging and pours out wrath against enemies - (question who are the enemies of God? - answer those who continue in Sin - notice Psalm 15!) - Because of sin we are enemies of God - Romans 5:10; Colossians 1:21 - Why are we no longer enemies but friends of God? Because Jesus who knew no sin became sin for us (2 Cor 5:21) - So in that moment when Jesus became sin - the natural theological conclusion here is that Christ experienced that which is connected to judged sin - that is the wrath of God (Nahum 1:2).

One more dip into a systematic theology - Notice in Romans 2:5 - those who are lost are headed for “wrath” - why? they’ve earned it! Compare with Romans 8:1 - what do God’s children experience? No comdenation - well what about the believer’s sin? That sin had to be met with the same wrath that the sin in Romans 2:5 will eventually be dealt with. That wrath and sin was expiated by Christ!

Don much of my conviction here is driven because I love and “get” Old Testament Theology. You see God’s wrath all over the OT! Towards the heathen - towards true Isreal - true false Isreal……etc……Why do we not see the same level of “wrath” in the NT? The answer in part is Christ. You do see wrath - and those in the eschaton will taste wrath - the devil and the anti-Christ - they’ll enjoy an eternity of wrath. The difference is that they recieved wrath because they earned it - Jesus recieved wrath because of imputation. Once the imputation was complete (both ways) the wrath (for redemption) was complete.

So those are some quick thoughts - I’ll try to bring more to the table if I can steal some time to think about this more.

Straight Ahead!

jt

It appears Joel that you haven’t read my other posts on this thread where I spell it out. I’ve dealt with most of the passages you cited and many more. Romans 3:21-26 is a favorite passage for me. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus covers our sins so that God is just and right to forgive us of our sins when we believe in Christ. Prior to Christ’s death, sins were passed over out of God’s forbearance. Animal sacrifices couldn’t take away sins. But Christ’s atoning sacrifice does cover sin. It actually takes our sins away so that God can rightfully forgive those who believe in his Son.

You have a kindred spirit with regard to biblical theology.

Systematic theology has its place (I teach both systematic theology and hermeneutics at the graduate level). However, before we construct theologies, should we not at least make sure we know what the nuts and bolts are?

So I ask you, Joel, where does the Bible teach the concept that God poured out his wrath on Jesus? Where does the Bible teach that God is an angry God that needs a sacrifice that will appease him? Is our God one of the Greek gods? How do you know that your “teachers” and “sources” for hilasmos are not just importing classical Greek concepts into the term. Yes, I know. Propitiation means that God’s wrath was appeased by the sacrifice of his Son. At least when you use classical Greek definitions and contexts from the angry gods. But you admitted that another meaning for the word is “to cover.” It can also mean expiation and sin offering.

The atoning sacrifice of Christ “covers” our sins or expiates our sins.

Joel, I’m stating that the sacrifice of Christ satisfied the love of God (Romans 5:8).

If you are stating that the sacrifice of Christ satisfied the wrath of God, show me the verse?

The tenor of the NT is that God loves the world and gave his Son to be a sin offering or cover for sin. His death expiates our sins when we believe in Christ because God is love and is motivated by love.

Again, please read what I have written in this thread. I am not “unorthodox” in my beliefs but stand in the stream of the historic, Christian faith. The reformers’ theory of the atonement is just that - a theory.

Don’t you see? His death is the ultimate display of wrath. Jesus became a spectacle. He was betrayed by one close to him. He was whipped. Brutally beaten. Spit upon. Mocked. Cursed. He was punished like a thief. He died outside the city. In the old testament animals were sacrificed outside the city. Jesus didn’t die of natural causes while sleeping. He died in one of the most horrific ways imaginable. The sun and moon were darkened, the Earth trembled after his death. Even the Roman centurion guarding him grew fearful when he saw the signs in the heavens. If someone dying on a cross does not display wrath, then I don’t know what does. I think one of the reasons why God chose sacrifices, is because it is a visual representation of the evil of our sin. Sin must ultimately be dealt with violently, painfully, swiftly, and through shedding of blood.

If God is not an angry and just God, then why does Hell exist?

Don, if you arrived at a crime scene, and found 7 bodies lying on the ground, all having been brutally beaten and stabbed to death, and blood splattered all over the floors and walls, would you not think that the person who committed the crime was angry and full of wrath?

That is what a person might have felt, when each year, thousands upon thousands of innocent animals were brought the to the priests, and had their throats slit, and were cut into pieces, and blood splattered upon people during the yearly sacrifces to God.

[Jeffrey Dean]

Now this is an excellent thread. It is so much better than the usual drivel. Threads like this are why I check this place often.

I would point out to David O that Jesus gave up His life of His own will in His own timing.

Don Sailer, I appreciate your points very much. They make me examine what I believe about what exactly happened on the Cross.

Example: I have heard like New York lawyer boiler plate from every other pastor in the pulpit that: “God is so Holy that He cannot look on sin and that is why He turned His back on His Son on the cross.” That statement seemed so obviously wrong to me since God has been in the presence of sin since Adam. God hung out with Adam while He made him some new clothes, He talked to Moses like a friend, He entertained the High Priest once a year, and so forth. (Not to mention that Jesus had been hanging with mankind for like 33 years prior to the cross.) So Shaynus, I have always wondered about those words from Jesus on the cross about being forsaken. And then I heard it explained to me in a way that finally made sense.

A teacher I enjoy said it like this. God the Father didn’t go anywhere. Yet Jesus the Son in those last minutes as a man with the burden of mankind’s sin heaped upon Him had His close bond of fellowship with His Father broken for the first time ever. Jesus couldn’t see, touch, hear, feel His connection due to that sin burden. The shock of that moment brought His cry.

That may not satisfy anyone here but it seems to me more in character with God the Father than abandonment.

Thank you Jeffrey. I enjoyed your post and your comments.

One thing to consider, do the Gospels portray the crucifixion event as a time when Jesus felt like he was under the wrath of God? Think about the rapid succession of quotes at the end of Jesus’ life. During the whole process, Jesus is aware of who he is and is in communion with his Father.

He even commits his spirit into his Father’s hands. Does this sound like someone under the wrath of God? Does it sound like Jesus was unaware of where his Father was? Think about it.

Do the scriptures state that the close bonds of fellowship with the Father were broken for the first time? Or did just some preacher say that?

John 8:29 and John 16:32 tell us what Jesus believed about his relationship with his Father at the moment of his crucifixion. Jesus believes that his Father will be with him and that he will not be alone! Then the Gospels portray Jesus in constant communion with his Father during the crucifixion. Read the Gospel accounts and you will see!

Blessings.

[Greg Long]

“Punishment” in Is. 53:5 corrective punishment. Yes, the LXX translated it with paideuo, but that word is used in Heb. 12:5-11 in a context that clearly indicates chastisement. The word “chastises” in Heb. 12:6 is literally “scourges.”

Hebrews 12:6 deals with believers under the discipline of God. Isaiah 53:5 deals with Jesus Christ and the discipline to subject himself to the Father’s will.

Since context determines meaning, and since paideuo has more than one meaning, it is hard to see what point you are making.

Verse 6 injects the word mastigoo into the poetic couplet. But again this “scourging” is of those who are believers under the discipline of God. It is interesting that in Proverbs 3:11-12, the source of the quote in Hebrews 12, the last phrase is “as a father the son he delights in.” No mention of scourging here.

Go figure. Can never figure out how the NT writers messed up the OT quotes. :)

[Greg Long]

Don, if Jesus didn’t die we would still be children of God’s wrath. God punished Jesus in our place, and so we are no longer the objects of His wrath, because Jesus was the object of His wrath on the cross when He forsook Him and bruised, punished, chastised, afflicted, etc., Him.

As David indicated, this is pretty basic and commonly accepted Protestant theology (well, except for the liberals, as indicated by the OP).

Greg,

You haven’t cited one verse to support your basic and commonly accepted Protestant theology. Please show me the verse that states that Jesus was the object of God’s wrath. This should be easy for you to do since this is a basic and commonly accepted Protestant belief.

[christian cerna]

Don, the bible also says that Christ became a curse for us. For cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree. I am not saying that Christ is still cursed, but at the point of his death, he took upon himself the punishment for our iniquities.

If punishment means merely discipline according to you, then why did Jesus have to be crucified at all? In that case, as long as he was obedient, then all he had to do was live a sinless life, and he could have died of natural causes, and we would still be saved.

The bible tells us that the wages of sin is death. We sinned. Christ did not. But Christ died in our place, taking upon himself the sins of the world, and the punishment for sin, which is death.

We must be honest and say that we don’t really know how sacrifices work. We don’t know why or how blood sacrifices takes away sin. In the old testament, before an animal was sacrificed, the owner would lay his hands on it, as a symbolic way of saying that he was transferring his sins to it. We must acknowledge that when Christ died, something happened in the spiritual world. Sins were taken away. Atonement was made before God. And that his blood really did have spiritual power to cleanse us from sin. Some things are a mystery.

I already answered this. He learned obedience from what he suffered (Hebrews 5:8, Phil. 2:8).

I agree fully with your last paragraph. That’s my point, too. We don’t know how the atoning sacrifice of Christ works. We just know that it does. But our friends who claim that Jesus was the object of God’s wrath are just making that up. You can’t find it in the Bible.

So God’s wrath is revealed against unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). We are all unrighteous in and of ourselves, so God has wrath towards us. As you agreed above, Jesus takes that sin from unrighteousness and carries it Himself, correct (2 Cor 5:21)? Does it not stand from simple reasoning that at the moment the wrath that was present on me now shifts to Him? If not why not?

[mbruffey]

What eventually became known as the New Haven Theology among the Congregationalists, and the New School Theology among the Presbyterians, was characterized by several aberrations from orthodox theology. Many of these aberrations hung together around the notion of a Moral Universe—and hence a Moral Government—that existed in a kind of parallel to the physical universe. The moral government operated on a certain set of rules, one of which was that God could only exert moral influence in the salvation of “free” human beings. For many of these nineteenth-century theologians, regeneration consisted merely in a change of the ruling preference of the mind, since sin consisted only in the act of sinning, and, therefore humans had no sinful “nature” requiring regeneration in the orthodox sense. Finney held this view.

For reasons that I won’t explore in this short post, the orthodox view of original sin, imputation of Adam’s sin, transmission of the sin nature, imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and penal substitutionary atonement all had to go, eventually. This occurred over a series of decades in New England and the Middle States, as well as in the “West” (Western NY and OH in particular).

What became the core of this “theology” for many adherents was the notion of Moral Government, as I said above. Another key feature was that it rolled all of God’s moral attributes into benevolence, or love. All moral attributes are merely expressions of benevolence. This (finally!) goes to the issue that Don Sailer has raised. If you do not wish to hold to the penal substitutionary theory, then you must have an alternative. The alternative articulated in the nineteenth century was the Governmental Theory of the Atonement. One beauty of the theory was that it alleviated the problem of a just God unjustly wrathfully punishing a just and beloved Son as if he were unloved and unjust. The Son, in fact, suffered only enough to show that God was serious about sin, thus honoring the concept of a moral government. As a result, penitent sinners are candidates for God’s mercy, and God remains just; his moral government is upheld. But there is no real “payment” of any kind for sin. There is no treasury of merit in Christ that is applied to the sinner’s account. The term imputation is still used in this theology, but it is redefined; it does not carry the orthodox notion of imputation.

I will give you a sample from Smalley:

“From the use of the words ransom and redemption, we are no more obliged to suppose a literal purchase, or an obligatory satisfaction in what our Saviour did and suffered, than we are to suppose there was occasion for such a kind of satisfaction, and for the same reasons as among men.” [p. 53] [emphasis mine]

Smalley, John. “Justification through Christ an Act of Free Grace.” In The Atonement: Discourses and Treatises by Edwards, Smalley, Maxcy, Emmons, Griffin, Burge, and Weeks with an Introductory Essay by Edwards A. Park, 43–64. Boston: Congregational Board of Publication, 1859.

(Smalley originally wrote in the 1810s or teens, and is republished here. A lot of the theology that Finney claimed as his own was slurped up, consciously or unconsciously, from Jonathan Edwards Jr., Timothy Dwight, Lyman Beecher, Albert Barnes, and, of course, that most notorious Nathaniel Taylor.)

Now, Don, I don’t know for certain that you hold to the governmental theory, and I do not mean to pigeonhole you or your theology. I’m merely reflecting on what you have articulated and trying to locate your notions within the development of theology in America.

Mark

Thank you, Mark, for a probing and thought-provoking post. I appreciate it.

I agree with all of the “orthodox” positions that you have stated including substitutionary atonement. What I don’t agree with is the excesses of reformed theology that reads into scripture, based on its theory of the atonement, what is not there. Thus we hear that Jesus bore the wrath of God, or that God poured out his wrath on Jesus in wave upon wave (Grudem), or Jesus was punished by God, etc. etc. But as you know, the scriptures don’t use this type of language.

My point is that we would do better to describe the atonement in terms of scriptural language instead of 16th century theories.

[Mark_Smith]

So God’s wrath is revealed against unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). We are all unrighteous in and of ourselves, so God has wrath towards us. As you agreed above, Jesus takes that sin from unrighteousness and carries it Himself, correct (2 Cor 5:21)? Does it not stand from simple reasoning that at the moment the wrath that was present on me now shifts to Him? If not why not?

Because the Bible doesn’t say so. We are by nature objects of God’s wrath. Jesus is by nature an object of God’s love. The sacrifice dies and sheds it’s blood to cover or atone for our sin. The sacrifice is not the object of God’s wrath. The sacrifice is the gift that atones for or covers our sins (John 3:16). So the sacrifice is actually a fragrant offering and beautiful sacrifice and the context of the sacrifice is not God’s wrath but God’s love (Eph. 5:1-2, 1 John 4:10).

God’s wrath is poured out on sinners and on those who reject Christ. It is not poured out on Christ or those who are in Christ. It is also not poured out on the “sacrifices” in the OT sacrificial system.

When Abraham was tested by God to sacrifice the son of the promise, what was the attitude of Abraham towards his son? Should we think that God’s attitude toward his own Son would be any different?

The best antidote to the teaching that God poured out his wrath on Jesus when he was crucified is to read the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion. Do these accounts indicate that God was pouring out his wrath on Jesus? How did Jesus view the upcoming crucifixion (John 8:29, 16:32)? How did he view his relationship to his Father as he contemplated the crucifixion? Now how did Jesus commune with his Father during the crucifixion?

I encourage you to take your theology from the Bible. Read it closely. I don’t know why Romans 5:8 is being so roundly rejected for a theory of Christ’s atonement that claims that Christ’s death satisfied God’s wrath. To do this, one must separate Jesus from the Father, make him the object of God’s wrath, and claim that God poured out his wrath on Jesus in wave upon wave.

Jesus death satisfied God’s love (Romans 5:8) and justice (Romans 3:25) so that the God who is love and who wants to forgive sin will be right and just to justify those who have faith in Jesus. This is scripture.

Don,

For the record I don’t see you as a jerk or stupid. I know what it’s like to be in your seat when you post something that many may not believe. So while it may seem like I’m jumping on top of the “buck-buck” pile that is on top of you - bro I’m more on the floor looking at you asking if you need juice or something - I love your spirit man.

Having said that ….. you dummy! (lol….just kidding!)

OK - first - Sorry for not interacting with previous posts - I shot off the answer when I saw your original post late today - I had time to glance over just a few posts before launching - I wasn’t trying to ignore what you had already written.

Second -at the risk of doing that again - Just one more round of passages - I think a few of these have already been mentioned - in addition to what many of us believe is the “wrath must be poured on Jesus to be satisfied by the Father for atonement ” view - we have the concept of wrath (orga) against sin in Rom 1:18, 2:5, 4:15, 5:9, 9:22, 12:19, 13:4, Eph 2:3, 5:6, Col 3:6, and 1 Thess 1:10, 2:16, 5:9. I think especially strong here is the idea behind Romans 3;25-26 - Jesus is “ilastarion” - Don you have to compare that with the Septuagint use of “edziaskomai” in Zech 7:2, 8:22, Mal 1:9.

That’s why for many of us it just comes together.

Pray about that and (like our more Keswick friends would say) see if you get a blessing!

God bless my friend

Straight Ahead!

jt

ps - btw - George Ladd deals with this more extensively in his “Theology” - check out pp 429-30.

“Propitiation” is a good word!

[Greg Long] Don, we’ve all posted numerous verses that clearly teach this concept but you just deny their plain meaning and then keep saying we haven’t posted any verses to document our position. Please stop doing that. For example, you can dance around “it pleased the Lord to bruise Him” all you want, but the meaning couldn’t be more clear.

Hi Greg,

Isaiah is writing poetry.

Isaiah is also explaining how humans despised and rejected the suffering servant. It was human beings who put Jesus to death.

Finally, the context of Isaiah 53:10-12 is a major shift in the chapter. It pleased the LORD to bruise him explains that all that Jesus went through was according the the set purpose and foreknowledge of God. It was God’s will or purpose for Jesus to suffer and die. But that is not the same thing as saying that God punished Jesus or God poured out his wrath on Jesus.

Read the text, my friend.

Read it in context.