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

[Greg Long]

Pretty much every one of us on this thread has quoted numerous Bible verses, including the scholars I quoted.

Yes.

Good, Greg.

Then you won’t have any problem quoting a verse from the Bible that states that God poured our his wrath on Jesus.

Why didn’t Grudem cite that verse?

Why won’t you answer my question? I’ve stated what I believe.

Do you believe that God poured out his wrath on Jesus in wave upon wave? Grudem believes this. Do you?

I and others have done that in post after post in this thread, Don.

I will cite a specific verse that specifically says God poured out his wrath on Jesus if you will cite a specific verse that specifically says God is one being in three persons.

[Greg Long]

Don, I can keep quoting scholar after scholar, as I referenced above. Doesn’t it bother you that, as your dear friend Wayne put it, you are outside evangelical scholarship on this issue and are actually in the liberal camp?

There it is.

I was going to bring it up because I believe your fear of being called a “liberal” dictates what you believe instead of what the Scriptures state.

I’m not a liberal and Wayne wouldn’t think so either. Because liberals get the wrath thing wrong with regard to unbelievers, we reject everything they state. We go so far as to do what they do, reading into the text what isn’t there.

Greg, how can you in all seriousness believe that I am outside evangelical scholarship on this issue after reading what I wrote. Because I challenged you to demonstrate where the Bible states that God poured our his wrath on Jesus, that makes me a liberal?

I’m still waiting for you to cite the chapter and verse in the Bible that teaches that God punished Jesus with wave upon wave of wrath. Where is it?

It is amazing that you elevate a “theory” of the atonement over the Scriptures and refuse to admit that your theory isn’t based on specific verses but rather man’s theory.

[Greg Long]

I and others have done that in post after post in this thread, Don.

I will cite a specific verse that specifically says God poured out his wrath on Jesus if you will cite a specific verse that specifically says God is one being in three persons.

Already addressed this. The concept of the trinity is in the Bible. I don’t need the word “trinity” to describe God. I can demonstrate that God is one. I can demonstrate that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. I can point to the “name” of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The actual concept is spelled out in Scripture.

The concept that God poured out his wrath on Jesus is not in the Bible. Find the verses that use the words. Can’t do it.

Greg, you can do better than this.

1. The curse in Galatians 3:10-13 is death, which is God’s righteous judgment, His punishment on our sin. (Romans 6:23)

2. Galatians 3:13 tells us Christ has redeemed us from the curse. We are freed from God’s righteous judgment, His punishment.

3. It also tells us we are redeemed because Christ has become a curse for us. He died in our place.

4. We are free from God’s punishment because Christ took the punishment in our place.

If this verse does not mean that Christ took our punishment then what does it mean?

[Don Sailer]

[Greg Long]

I and others have done that in post after post in this thread, Don.

I will cite a specific verse that specifically says God poured out his wrath on Jesus if you will cite a specific verse that specifically says God is one being in three persons.

Already addressed this. The concept of the trinity is in the Bible. I don’t need the word “trinity” to describe God. I can demonstrate that God is one. I can demonstrate that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. I can point to the “name” of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The actual concept is spelled out in Scripture.

The concept that God poured out his wrath on Jesus is not in the Bible. Find the verses that use the words. Can’t do it.

Greg, you can do better than this.

[Andrew K.]

[Don Sailer]

[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.

What about the cup mentioned in Mark 10:38?

Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

This is a different context from the Lucan passage.

And what was the disciples’ answer? They said, “We can” (Mark 10:39).

And what did Jesus state?

“You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with.”

If the cup is God’s wrath, and if Jesus is the recipient of this cup of wrath so that we don’t have to be, none of the above makes sense!

The cup is the cup of the New Covenant in his blood. Everyone must drink from this cup if they are to enter into the New Covenant and be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

[Don Sailer]

[Greg Long]

I and others have done that in post after post in this thread, Don.

I will cite a specific verse that specifically says God poured out his wrath on Jesus if you will cite a specific verse that specifically says God is one being in three persons.

Already addressed this. The concept of the trinity is in the Bible. I don’t need the word “trinity” to describe God. I can demonstrate that God is one. I can demonstrate that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. I can point to the “name” of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The actual concept is spelled out in Scripture.

The concept that God poured out his wrath on Jesus is not in the Bible. Find the verses that use the words. Can’t do it.

Greg, you can do better than this.

Don, one of the definitions of the word wrath is “retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement”.

I think this is what they mean when they say that the wrath of God fell on Jesus. That Jesus received the punishment for the offense or crime that we committed.

Don, I have read through this thread and it seems you conflate three different terms/concepts:

1. Was the wrath of God “poured out” on Christ on the cross?
2. Did Christ’s death satisfy God’s wrath?
3. If there must be a penalty for sin (Rom. 6:23), did Christ pay that penalty on the cross?

Of these three, only the terminology of the first can be questioned since the Bible doesn’t seem to use that language. However, in order for the answers to 2 and 3 to be “no” you must ignore much of what Scripture says about sin and its penalty. If Isaiah 53:5 does not refer to this, I don’t have any idea what it means:

But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. (NASB)

To say this has nothing to do with Christ suffering the penalty for our sins stretches the meaning to the breaking point.

Also, your argument is to constantly say, “show me a verse” but you disqualify any verses using the Gk. word hilasmos by defining it differently than the rest of those posting here.

Ok, if it will make you feel better, for now let’s lose the “poured out” language. However you still must answer the following questions:

Why did Christ had to die on the cross if He did not shed His blood to provide remission of sin (Heb. 9:22)? And how did Christ provide remission (aphesis - “remission of a penalty”) if the penalty was not paid?

Why he say teleo on the cross if there was no requirement to pay/fulfill?

If all he did was show His love and obedience by dying on the cross, then why did it have to be the perfect Lamb of God to take away (airo) the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29). Couldn’t someone else have died and showed God’s love? (And, since during the time of the Romans thousands suffered beating and crucifixion, why does the Bible present the suffering of Christ as something extraordinary and unique?)

To all, I find it almost humorous the number of you who overlook what Don is actually asking for and instead post excerpts out of systematic theologies. Good grief. Consider that you are only reinforcing his contention. It would be like asking for a verse that saying that the rapture is pretrib. No verse exists. Some of you would run to Ryrie or Pentecost. Enough already. Check yourselves.

To Don’s original point, there is no verse that explicitly states that the cross satisfied the wrath of God. That doesn’t at all mean it isn’t true though. We know the same is true for the Trinity. There is no verse that explicitly states that God exists in three persons yet is one.

To prove the case, one would have to demonstrate that the Bible explicitly teaches:

1. That God’s righteous response to sin is wrath

2. That sin will be judged in 2 ways:

a. The death of Jesus as substitute for man

b. eternal torment to the unbeliever

We know that according to Romans 1, God’s wrath is revealed against the sinfulness of man (Rom 1:18, 2:5-8). The unbeliever is storing up for himself wrath for the day of God’s wrath. The gospel is presented as the deliverance (salvation) from God’s wrath (Rom 1:16).

So going back to the cup matter, I present the following:

So this would address 2b.

Jer 25:15-26 - the text explicitly mentions the cup of God’s wrath against the nations. Rev 14:10 is the NT counterpart to Jeremiah’s prediction. It is the wrath of God mixed in the cup of His anger.

So this would address 2a.

The cup that Jesus prayed with great intensity to avoid was this same cup. It was NOT the cup of the New Covenant. The NC was going to be a time of great joy and blessing. The language through the OT and NT presents it as glorious and marvelous in its scope. It isn’t a time of judgment and wrath at all.

During the Lord’s supper, the cup of the NC was the 3rd of 4. Jesus did not drink the final cup and wouldn’t until He returned in His kingdom. This is just ignorance of what Jesus did in the upper room really.

Jesus didn’t experience blessing and joy on the cross. He had to endure the bitterness of God’s wrath.

So Don, while I admire your tenacity to be truthful, a little more study would help out quite a bit. I wish you well in your future studies that you too will see the greatness of Jesus’ suffering for us.

[James K] To all, I find it almost humorous the number of you who overlook what Don is actually asking for and instead post excerpts out of systematic theologies. Good grief. Consider that you are only reinforcing his contention. It would be like asking for a verse that saying that the rapture is pretrib. No verse exists. Some of you would run to Ryrie or Pentecost. Enough already. Check yourselves.

To Don’s original point, there is no verse that explicitly states that the cross satisfied the wrath of God. That doesn’t at all mean it isn’t true though. We know the same is true for the Trinity. There is no verse that explicitly states that God exists in three persons yet is one.

Though it is not as if no one raised Scriptures on point. Multiple posters quoted multiple Scriptures that “demonstrate” the “actual concept” that Don denies. Don dismissed them because they do not state the point in exact words. No matter that is unsound hermeneutically. So it seems to me that the quotation of systematic theologies is an effort to say, in essence, if you do not believe me as to the interpretation of these passages, maybe you will believe these writers.

Does that reinforce Don’s point? Well, maybe. But Don’s point is pointless, as his response to the Trinity argument shows. He does not hold himself to the same “use the words” standard that he is demanding of those disagreeing with him. No matter that is inconsistent.

So round and round this goes.

C’mon, James, you can’t have posted that if you read the entire thread. Most of us, including myself (who is the one posting the excerpts from commentaries) have made numerous references to Bible verses and have basically said what you have said. It was only after numerous Bible verses had been posted and Don continued to dismiss them out of hand that I referenced systematic theologies and commentaries just to show that Don was outside of the mainstream of evangelical scholarship on this issue.

Greg was very gracious when he said:

Don was outside of the mainstream of evangelical scholarship on this issue.

I would simply say that Don is wrong. The PCUSA and other theologically liberal groups have long denied the wrath of God. Don seems to agree with their position.

Don did affirm God’s wrath toward guilty humans. He may have affirmed His wrath toward sin itself—I’m not rereading the thread at this point. But if he so affirms, is it so hard to see, if he agrees Jesus bore our sins on the cross, and God’s wrath is directed toward sin, that Jesus suffered under God’s wrath?

Edit: not sure why I’m talking about him like he’s not here. :)

[Don Sailer]

[Shaynus]

Don,

“My God, My God why have you forsaken me?” was quoted by Jesus at the cross. If he was seen by God as only innocent, why would God forsake Him (and do the rest of the imagery in PS 22)? It’s not impossible for God to see Jesus both as sinless and as bearing the sin of the world. Just like the doctrine of the trinity, our categories for what is possible or impossible break down in the light of the cross. Why can’t it be that God can pour his wrath out on Jesus who is made sin for us, and that the same Jesus be perfectly sinless. I see no contradiction. In addition to Is. 53, what about Psalm 22?

Hi Shaynus,

Jesus was quoting Psalm 22:1. There is no way to reference a psalm in his day except by reciting the first line. I encourage you to read Psalm 22 to see what it is about. You will then see why Jesus referred those present to the psalm. It is also important to understand that both Matthew and Mark transliterate the saying. This was done so that the reader would know that Jesus is quoting scripture.

Can you show me a verse in the Bible that states that God poured out his wrath on Jesus? The issue isn’t whether or not you see a contradiction. The issue is whether or not the Bible states that God poured our his wrath on Jesus.

Blessings.

Don,

I’m attempting to grasp your logic here, so are you saying that Jesus did not really mean what He said on the cross … that Jesus simply “felt” forsaken? Or, are you saying that Jesus was simply quoting the first line of a Psalm He never intended to be applied to His cross-work? Or, are you saying something else?

I’ve read Psalm 22 multiple times to attempt to understand what you are aiming at in your comment … because you really didn’t answer why Jesus cry of “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” doesn’t mean that God actually did forsake His Son on our behalf.

Perhaps I am dense and am slow at understanding your argument, so please help me out here.