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

[Ron Bean]

“Propitiation” is a good word!

Except for when we import classical Greek meanings to the word and claim that God was an angry God that needed to be appeased. Many of us can even accept the idea that Jesus’ death appeased God’s wrath in that his death expiated our sins and turned God’s wrath away from us. What we can’t embrace, because it is nowhere to be found in the scriptures is the concept that God’s wrath was turned away from us because God poured out our wrath on Jesus.

I love the word hilasmos. Jesus is our atoning sacrifice. His blood did cover our sins. His death does result in forgiveness for all who believe in him.

It’s a wonderful word.

Good discussion and important! Don is tenacious and is catching some people off guard. I think there is a great propensity toward error and a slippery slope here if followed too far though. See this article by Greg Albrecht which shows how far this idea can take someone.

This article by Scott McKnight illustrated the fact that there has been a division in evangelical theology over the meaning of the word translated propitiation - the same word can be understood as expiation. I think propitiation is best in line with the OT and am not swayed by the reasoning in McKnight’s article. This article by Colin Hansen illustrates some of the perspectives that are more in line with orthodox Protestant understanding of the term.

Ultimately biblical theology helps us here in understanding the meaning of the “cup” concept in Gesthemane. Ironically, N.T. Wright helps us see that Jesus really does bear the wrath of God. See this summary of Wright’s views and the section on “the Cup of God’s Wrath” particularly.

“The Old Testament prophets speak darkly about the ‘cup of YHWH’s wrath.’ These passages talk of what happens when the one God, grieving over the awful wickedness of the world, steps in at last to give the violent and bloodthirsty, the arrogant and oppressors, the reward for their ways and deeds. It’s as though God’s holy anger against such people is turned into wine: dark, sour wine which will make them drunk and helpless. They will be forced to “drink the cup,” to drain to the dregs the wrath of the God who loves and vindicates the weak and helpless. The shock of this passage… is that Jesus speaks of drinking this cup himself.”

I don’t see how Jesus’ death is something that can be rejoiced in and exulted in so much as it is in the NT unless there was something forensic happening with regard to sin. I don’t understand payment of wrath as the only atonement idea that explains things. I think there is Christus Victor going on - there is a conquering of Satan and his hordes, there are multiple things happening through the work on the Cross. But one of them is the propitiating of God’s wrath against sin. Isaiah 53, the propitiatory texts in the NT and the ransom/redeem language as well, makes that clear. Additionally, the concept of our union with Christ and solidarity with him in his death so that our body of death is destroyed and we are raised to walk in new life enters into this as well. his death is our death - we can’t be joined with him in death as a pleasing sacrifice to God - that isn’t the aspect of his death we join with. Our death is united with his in the fact that his death took our punishment for our sins, absorbed God’s wrath for us.

The article I first linked to above that shows how far this can go belittles not just the idea of God having wrath on Christ - but God having wrath on us - at all. The idea that God needs to have wrath appeased is equated with pagan religion at best. It is that sentiment which leads to a misrepresentation and slanderous view of the satisfaction theory of the atonement which we are defending here. John Piper responded to that error here.

This isn’t about defending Anselm or Luther, it isn’t about Protestantism per se, it is about the Bible and being true to the full picture presented about Christ’s atonement and our need. Historic orthodox theology for hundreds of years in and out of the Catholic church even, has agreed on the satisfaction view of atonement as being Biblical and important. We shouldn’t push that aside lightly.

Don, look up the word anger in the Bible. All throughout the Scriptures you can read about the anger of the Lord, or the Lord’s anger being kindled against his people or against his enemies.

The word appease means to bring to a state of peace. It can also mean to satisfy a need.

When Christ died(received our punishment), He appeased God; He brought peace between us and God; He satisfied God’s need for justice.

So it is not incorrect to say that Christ died in order to appease God’s anger and need for justice.

[Bob Hayton]

Good discussion and important! Don is tenacious and is catching some people off guard. I think there is a great propensity toward error and a slippery slope here if followed too far though. See this article by Greg Albrecht which shows how far this idea can take someone.

This article by Scott McKnight illustrated the fact that there has been a division in evangelical theology over the meaning of the word translated propitiation - the same word can be understood as expiation. I think propitiation is best in line with the OT and am not swayed by the reasoning in McKnight’s article. This article by Colin Hansen illustrates some of the perspectives that are more in line with orthodox Protestant understanding of the term.

Ultimately biblical theology helps us here in understanding the meaning of the “cup” concept in Gesthemane. Ironically, N.T. Wright helps us see that Jesus really does bear the wrath of God. See this summary of Wright’s views and the section on “the Cup of God’s Wrath” particularly.

“The Old Testament prophets speak darkly about the ‘cup of YHWH’s wrath.’ These passages talk of what happens when the one God, grieving over the awful wickedness of the world, steps in at last to give the violent and bloodthirsty, the arrogant and oppressors, the reward for their ways and deeds. It’s as though God’s holy anger against such people is turned into wine: dark, sour wine which will make them drunk and helpless. They will be forced to “drink the cup,” to drain to the dregs the wrath of the God who loves and vindicates the weak and helpless. The shock of this passage… is that Jesus speaks of drinking this cup himself.”

I don’t see how Jesus’ death is something that can be rejoiced in and exulted in so much as it is in the NT unless there was something forensic happening with regard to sin. I don’t understand payment of wrath as the only atonement idea that explains things. I think there is Christus Victor going on - there is a conquering of Satan and his hordes, there are multiple things happening through the work on the Cross. But one of them is the propitiating of God’s wrath against sin. Isaiah 53, the propitiatory texts in the NT and the ransom/redeem language as well, makes that clear. Additionally, the concept of our union with Christ and solidarity with him in his death so that our body of death is destroyed and we are raised to walk in new life enters into this as well. his death is our death - we can’t be joined with him in death as a pleasing sacrifice to God - that isn’t the aspect of his death we join with. Our death is united with his in the fact that his death took our punishment for our sins, absorbed God’s wrath for us.

The article I first linked to above that shows how far this can go belittles not just the idea of God having wrath on Christ - but God having wrath on us - at all. The idea that God needs to have wrath appeased is equated with pagan religion at best. It is that sentiment which leads to a misrepresentation and slanderous view of the satisfaction theory of the atonement which we are defending here. John Piper responded to that error here.

This isn’t about defending Anselm or Luther, it isn’t about Protestantism per se, it is about the Bible and being true to the full picture presented about Christ’s atonement and our need. Historic orthodox theology for hundreds of years in and out of the Catholic church even, has agreed on the satisfaction view of atonement as being Biblical and important. We shouldn’t push that aside lightly.

It is interesting to see that my thoughts are tracking with Moule’s as explained by McKnight.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/06/22/the-wrath-of-god-sat…

As to the cup, before we run back to the OT and claim that the “cup” is the cup of God’s wrath, maybe we should go back 22 verses in Luke 22 and let the Gospel text identify what the cup is. See Luke 22:42 and Luke 22:20. The cup is the cup of the New Covenant in my blood. It is not the cup of God’s wrath.

Thank you for your thoughts, Bob. I appreciate them.

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

I suspect you are referring to my question about God killing His Son, which phrasing I used to point up the incongruity of all that happened in Jesus suffering and death with the simple “satisfying of love” view.

But the notion that Jesus willingly gave up his own life, with which I agree, is not at all at odds whatsoever with the imputation of sinner’s guilt to Christ’s account and His suffering in punishment of our sins.

Just to clarify.

The article linked in the OP is also a good resource - I appreciated Timothy George’s discussion of wrath and hymnology and everything else in that article.

To All:

If the key and crucial concept of the Gospel is that God poured out his wrath on Jesus, why didn’t the Gospel writers or apostles declare this in simple, precise language?

Why is there no verse in the Bible like this:

God poured out his wrath on the Son so that by believing in him, you have been set free from God’s wrath.

I am not denying that we are by nature objects of God’s wrath. I am not denying that God has wrath for those who reject him and rebel against him. But that is not the question. The question is, did God pour out his wrath on Jesus?

And as Moule and McKnight have pointed out, the Bible doesn’t state this. There are, however, numerous verses that connect God’s love to the death of Christ - Romans 5:8, 1 John 4:10, John 3:16, etc.

Why are so many of you upset by the scriptural concepts that teach that Christ’s death covered our sins and expiated them so that by believing in Christ, we are reconciled to a loving God?

Again I challenge you to the Moule test. Show me one verse in the Bible that states that God poured out his wrath on Jesus when he died. I can show you numerous verses that connect the death of Christ to the love of God. I’m asking you to show me a verse that states that Jesus was the object of God’s wrath.

Blessings.

[christian cerna]

Don, look up the word anger in the Bible. All throughout the Scriptures you can read about the anger of the Lord, or the Lord’s anger being kindled against his people or against his enemies.

The word appease means to bring to a state of peace. It can also mean to satisfy a need.

When Christ died(received our punishment), He appeased God; He brought peace between us and God; He satisfied God’s need for justice.

So it is not incorrect to say that Christ died in order to appease God’s anger and need for justice.

Christian, I don’t disagree with you. I affirm all that you wrote here.

I believe that Jesus’ death does appease God’s wrath for us in that our sins are forgiven and we have been reconciled to God in Christ.

I do not believe that Jesus’ death appeased God’s wrath for us if by this statement we mean that God poured out his wrath on Jesus. Therefore, I think the hymn would be improved if the authors accepted the recommendation of the committee and changed the line to: the love of God was magnified.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Blessings.

Don, it pleased the Lord to bruise Him. The verse is clear, and the context is clear. You try to explain the plain meaning away by saying it was God’s will that Jesus die. Of course it was—no one is disputing that. But these concepts are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to believe both that it was God’s will that Jesus die (which it was) AND that it pleased the Lord to bruise Him.

[Calvin] Isaiah 53:10
Yet Jehovah was pleased to bruise him. This illustrates more fully what I formerly stated in few words, that the Prophet, in asserting Christ’s innocence, aims at something more than to defend him from all reproach. The object therefore is, that we should consider the cause, in order to have experience of the effect; for God appoints nothing at random, and hence it follows that the cause of his death is lawful. We must also keep in view the contrast. In Christ there was no fault; why, then, was the Lord pleased that he should suffer? Because he stood in our room, and in no other way than by his death could the justice of God be satisfied.

When he shall have offered his soul as a sacrifice. (asham) denotes both sin and the sacrifice which is offered for sin, and is often used in the latter sense in the Scriptures. (Ex 29:14; Ezek 45:22) The sacrifice was offered in such a manner as to expiate sin by enduring its punishment and curse. This was expressed by the priests by means of the laying on of hands, as if they threw on the sacrifice the sins of the whole nation. (Ex 29:15) And if a private individual offered a sacrifice, he also laid his hand upon it, as if he threw upon it his own sin. Our sins were thrown upon Christ in such a manner that he alone bore the curse.

On this account Paul also calls him a “curse” or “execration:” “Christ hath redeemed us from the execration of the law, having been made an execration for us.” (Gal 3:13) He likewise calls him “Sin;” “For him who knew no sin hath he made to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor 5:21) And in another passage, “For what was impossible for the law, inasmuch as it was weak on account of the flesh, God did, by sending his own Son in the likeness of flesh liable to sin, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” (Rom 8:3,4) What Paul meant by the words “curse” and “sin” in these passages is the same as what the Prophet meant by the word (asham.) In short, (asham) is equivalent to the Latin word piaculum, an expiatory sacrifice.

Here we have a description of the benefit of Christ’s death, that by his sacrifice sins were expiated, and God was reconciled towards men; for such is the import of this word (asham.) Hence it follows that nowhere but in Christ is found expiation and satisfaction for sin. In order to understand this better, we must first know that we are guilty before God, so that we may be accursed and detestable in his presence. Now, if we wish to return to a state of favor with him, sin must be taken away. This cannot be accomplished by sacrifices contrived according to the fancy of men. Consequently, we must come to the death of Christ; for in no other way can satisfaction be given to God. In short, Isaiah teaches that sins cannot be pardoned in any other way than by betaking ourselves to the death of Christ. If any person think that this language is harsh and disrespectful to Christ, let him descend into himself, and, after a close examination, let him ponder how dreadful is the judgment of God, which could not be pacified but by this price; and thus the inestimable grace which shines forth in making Christ accursed will easily remove every ground of offense. (from Calvin’s Commentaries, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2005-2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

[Greg Long]

Don, it pleased the Lord to bruise Him. The verse is clear, and the context is clear. You try to explain the plain meaning away by saying it was God’s will that Jesus die. Of course it was—no one is disputing that. But these concepts are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to believe both that it was God’s will that Jesus die (which it was) AND that it pleased the Lord to bruise Him.

[Calvin] Isaiah 53:10
Yet Jehovah was pleased to bruise him. This illustrates more fully what I formerly stated in few words, that the Prophet, in asserting Christ’s innocence, aims at something more than to defend him from all reproach. The object therefore is, that we should consider the cause, in order to have experience of the effect; for God appoints nothing at random, and hence it follows that the cause of his death is lawful. We must also keep in view the contrast. In Christ there was no fault; why, then, was the Lord pleased that he should suffer? Because he stood in our room, and in no other way than by his death could the justice of God be satisfied.

When he shall have offered his soul as a sacrifice. (asham) denotes both sin and the sacrifice which is offered for sin, and is often used in the latter sense in the Scriptures. (Ex 29:14; Ezek 45:22) The sacrifice was offered in such a manner as to expiate sin by enduring its punishment and curse. This was expressed by the priests by means of the laying on of hands, as if they threw on the sacrifice the sins of the whole nation. (Ex 29:15) And if a private individual offered a sacrifice, he also laid his hand upon it, as if he threw upon it his own sin. Our sins were thrown upon Christ in such a manner that he alone bore the curse.

On this account Paul also calls him a “curse” or “execration:” “Christ hath redeemed us from the execration of the law, having been made an execration for us.” (Gal 3:13) He likewise calls him “Sin;” “For him who knew no sin hath he made to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor 5:21) And in another passage, “For what was impossible for the law, inasmuch as it was weak on account of the flesh, God did, by sending his own Son in the likeness of flesh liable to sin, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” (Rom 8:3,4) What Paul meant by the words “curse” and “sin” in these passages is the same as what the Prophet meant by the word (asham.) In short, (asham) is equivalent to the Latin word piaculum, an expiatory sacrifice.

Here we have a description of the benefit of Christ’s death, that by his sacrifice sins were expiated, and God was reconciled towards men; for such is the import of this word (asham.) Hence it follows that nowhere but in Christ is found expiation and satisfaction for sin. In order to understand this better, we must first know that we are guilty before God, so that we may be accursed and detestable in his presence. Now, if we wish to return to a state of favor with him, sin must be taken away. This cannot be accomplished by sacrifices contrived according to the fancy of men. Consequently, we must come to the death of Christ; for in no other way can satisfaction be given to God. In short, Isaiah teaches that sins cannot be pardoned in any other way than by betaking ourselves to the death of Christ. If any person think that this language is harsh and disrespectful to Christ, let him descend into himself, and, after a close examination, let him ponder how dreadful is the judgment of God, which could not be pacified but by this price; and thus the inestimable grace which shines forth in making Christ accursed will easily remove every ground of offense. (from Calvin’s Commentaries, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2005-2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Calvin stated that the phrase “it pleased the LORD to bruise him” has to do with the cause of his death. Humans put Jesus to death. But it was according to the set purpose and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23). God ordained that Jesus should die, but it was wicked men who put him to death.

I agree with Calvin. It pleased God to bruise him is poetic language that means that Jesus died according to the set purpose of God. You seem to be taking poetic language and using it to claim that God was “pleased” to bruise Jesus himself. That God was the actor in the scene. Please read Isaiah 53 and answer my previous questions to you. Did God afflict Jesus or did men? Did God crush Jesus or men? Did God despise Jesus or did men? Did God reject Jesus or did men? Did God pierce Jesus or did men?

Like I said, I agree with this excerpt by Calvin.

God was “pleased” that Jesus died because of the results that it would bring (Isaiah 53:10-12). Many would be justified. This pleased God. God was pleased with the results of his Son’s death and resurrection.

Calvin:

On this account Paul also calls him a “curse” or “execration:” “Christ hath redeemed us from the execration of the law, having been made an execration for us.” (Gal 3:13) He likewise calls him “Sin;” “For him who knew no sin hath he made to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor 5:21) And in another passage, “For what was impossible for the law, inasmuch as it was weak on account of the flesh, God did, by sending his own Son in the likeness of flesh liable to sin, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” (Rom 8:3,4) What Paul meant by the words “curse” and “sin” in these passages is the same as what the Prophet meant by the word (asham.) In short, (asham) is equivalent to the Latin word piaculum, an expiatory sacrifice.

Hmmm?

Thanks Greg for the tip.

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.

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

I don’t have time to retype all of these, but I would encourage you to read any of the following:

• Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 829-830, 834-35
• Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 574-577
• Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 382-383
• Akin, A Theology for the Church, p. 562-565
• Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 339-342
• Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:489-515
• Warfield, Works, 2:4-1-435
• Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, p. 233, 325
• Chafer, Systematic Theology, 2:64-65
• Piper, 50 Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die, p. 20-23
• Jeffery, Ovey, & Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions, pretty much the whole book
• Sproul, “The Curse Motif of the Atonement,” in Proclaiming a Cross-Centered Theology, p. 131-143. You can listen to Sproul give this talk here: http://t4g.org/media/2010/04/the-curse-motif-of-the-atonement-session-v/
• Packer & Dever, In My Place Condemned He Stood