Donations for the month of January


We have received a total of "$25" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Rick Bates
Rick Bates
Charlestown, R.I. US
Posts: 191
Joined: January 2020
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,367
Posts53,551
Members968
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,125
Tom 4,127
chestnutmare 3,100
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,823
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 31
Pilgrim 29
jta 23
Robin 2
Meta4 2
Recent Posts
PM Trudeau on Fundamental Rights
by Pilgrim - Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:51 PM
Charismatics and Government Vaccine Mandates
by jta - Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:19 AM
News Media in Canada
by Tom - Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:50 PM
Where are they now?
by Pilgrim - Sat Jan 15, 2022 7:24 AM
Like Father, Like Son
by NetChaplain - Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:15 PM
The Great Reset
by Pilgrim - Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:44 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 11
Plebeian
OP Offline
Plebeian
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 11

It seems as though every time I hear a Christian talk about the cross, it is usually said that Jesus Christ suffered God's wrath on the cross. I'm not aware of any verses that ever speak of God being wrathful towards His obedient Son. However, there are a number of verses associated with sacrifice that give God's attitude towards a sacrifice as "acceptable", "fragrant odor", "well pleasing", "delight", etc. "Well pleasing" is obviously quite the opposite of wrath.

In the Old Testament, the smell of the burning sacrifice was said to be a "fragrant odor" rising to God. Eph 5:2 says, "...and gives Himself up for us, an approach present and a sacrifice to God, for a fragrant odor." The smell of roasting meat and fat is a very pleasing and delightful smell especially if you are hungry.

Phil 4:18 "...receiving from Epaphroditus the things from you, an odor fragrant, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God." The Philippians gifts were a sacrifice and they were well pleasing, acceptable, and a fragrant odor.

In Hebrews 10:5-10 we are told that God did not really delight in the approach presents and sacrifices. God delights in obedience. God delighted in His obedient Son Who said, "Lo! I am arriving--In the summary of the scroll it is written concerning Me--To do Thy will, O God."

I think one of the most astounding things Jesus ever said was "I do always the things that please Him(the Father)"(John 8:29) What pleases a father more than when His child is obedient? The cross was a test of that obedience. The Lord Jesus Christ faced the cross and said not My will, but your will be done.

"...through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just." Rom 5:19

"...He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."(Phil 2:8)

The Israelites were supposed to make sure that the animals they sacrificed to God were flawless specimens without blemishes or physical imperfections. The flawless qualities of the Lord Jesus Christ were things like humility, obedience, faithfulness, devotion, and endurance. These were the qualities that were tested and manifested in the context of His trials and sufferings. And these were the qualities that were a delight to His Father.

What was an Israelite saying when he brought his sacrifices before God? I think he was saying something like this: "I know I sinned and blew it. I know you are angry with me. I'm flawed and imperfect and I have disobeyed you. But here is a perfect animal. Take delight in this perfect animal and be at peace with me and let there be reconciliation between us.

"For if, being enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son..."(Rom 5:10) We have reconciliation with God through the death of His Son, for the flawless qualities of His Son were a delight and a "fragrent odor" but without the resurrection of Jesus Christ do we have salvation from sin and death? "...much rather, being reconciled, we shall be saved in His life."(Rom 5:10) A dead savior, cannot save anyone. "Now if Christ has not been roused, vain is your faith--you are still in your sins!"(1Cor 15:17) We should always be flawed sinners and mortal and dying if Jesus Christ had not been raised to life. Because He now lives, He can one day raise us to flawless righteousness and immortality. "...through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead. For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be made alive." (1Cor 15:21,22)

We should have a high opinion of the worthy qualities of the Lord Jesus Christ. "Worthy is the Lamb slain, to get power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing!"(Rev 5:12) The Father knows His Son to be worthy "Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name..."(Phil 2:9) He is worthy to receive honor and glory and one day every knee and tongue will honor Him.




A man cannot get anything unless it is given him by heaven. God gives to all life, and breath and all.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 6
The Boy Wonder
Offline
The Boy Wonder
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 6
I believe the scripture is plain that Christ bore the punishment for our sins, enduring the wrath of holy God on our behalf. As He bore our sins in His own body on the tree; as He "became sin for us," He suffered the penalty for sin on behalf of those who believe.

Isaiah 53 immediately comes to mind, and verse 5 certainly describes God's wrath poured out against guilt. "Pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities,the punishment for our peace was upon Him ... The Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him."

The Apostle Paul describes His work in terms of imputation: Adam's guilt imputed to us, Our sins and guilt imputed to Him so that He could bear the punishment of God for our guilt and atone (pay for) our sin, and His righteousness imputed to us.

Christ bore the wrath of God on behalf of the redeemed.

1 member likes this: Readin
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,126
Likes: 32
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,126
Likes: 32
To expand a bit and to add an addition to what Robin wrote, which I totally agree with...

Using your 'logic', God hates sinners and is angry with the wicked day and night (Ps 5:5, 7:11; Prov 6:16-19; Hab 1:13; Mal 1:1,2; Jh 3:36; Rom 1:18, 9:13; Eph 2:3; et al). The Lord Christ came as a substitute for sinners, having been made sin (2Cor 5:21) had of necessity to endure the wrath of God received the just punishment due those for whose whom He died at the crucifixion (Matt 27:46).

Additionally, the NT uses the word "propitiation" [Gk: hilasterion, hilaskomi] to describe what the Lord Christ accomplished in His vicarious substitutionary atonement on the cross (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1Jh 2:2, 4:10). The definition of "propitiation is to appease the offended one's wrath by the removal of that which offends. This is exactly what the Lord Christ did in behalf of His people according to justice; to endure the wrath of God in enduring God's judgment as punishment for the sins which were imputed to Him.

It is true that God eternally loves the Son and from eternity loved all those for whom He predestinated to salvation in Christ (Eph 1:4,5, 2:4; Rom 8:29,30). This is in no way contradictory to the wrath which God has for all sinners nor the wrath which was poured out on the Lord Christ on the cross as their substitute.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
1 member likes this: Readin
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 11
Plebeian
OP Offline
Plebeian
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 11


Hello Robin,

But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.(Isaiah 53:5)

Yes, Jesus "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures"(1Cor 15:3). It is also evident that in some way, because of the death of Jesus Christ, God's attitude toward us was changed.

Let's say that I have offended my neighbor in some way. Let's say that I bring my neighbor an "offering" or an "approach present" to change his attitude towards me.

In one scenario, I bring my neighbor a bowl of rotten, flawed, (sinful) fruit as a "peace offering". Is my neighbor's attitude towards me going to change because of this? No, his attitude would only harden and get worse. A bowl of rotten fruit would not be a "fragrant odor", "acceptable", or a delight to my neighbor.

Now imagine that I bring my neighbor a peace offering and a sacrifice that is a perfect bowl of fruit. This time the offering is a delight, it is acceptable, and it is a fragrant odor to my neighbor. Would such an offering change my neighbor's attitude toward me? Yes, it would.

So, was an Israelite saying, "Let the wrath you have for me be directed at, manifested upon, and expended on this flawless lamb that I am giving to you so that you will be at peace with me?" I would suggest he is saying something like this, "I know I have no merit within myself and that I am not acceptable to you in and of myself, nor can I dwell with you or approach you in and of myself. Of myself, all I can do is make you angry. But let me approach you on the merits of this flawless lamb. Let me find acceptance with you, favor from you, and delight from you based on the worthiness of this flawless lamb. Let this peace offering find favor in your eyes and may there be peace and reconciliation between us.



A man cannot get anything unless it is given him by heaven. God gives to all life, and breath and all.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,126
Likes: 32
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,126
Likes: 32
Originally Posted by Charlemagne
Hello Robin,

But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.(Isaiah 53:5)

Yes, Jesus "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures"(1Cor 15:3). It is also evident that in some way, because of the death of Jesus Christ, God's attitude toward us was changed.
Hello Charlemagne,

It is not "evident IN SOME WAY God's attitude toward us was changed." This is a major flaw in your premise. We KNOW assuredly that God's 'attitude' wasn't the main issue that needed changing, for in fact, God's attitude cannot change. For if God's attitude needs changing, then He is imperfect. His eternal hatred of sinners and of the sin they commit is incontrovertible and will be infinitely demonstrated at the final judgment when all those who are outside of Christ are cast into eternal torment.

What you apparently do not grasp or perhaps reject is that the perfect sacrifice of the God-man was more than a simple offering. JUSTICE had to be done which demanded punishment; eternal punishment for sins committed against Almighty Jehovah. In fact, if any human being after Adam had lived a perfect life, they would still be liable for judgment for they are by nature and imputation, guilty before God. It took one who was inexorably holy, pure, undefiled... One who was the effulgence of God's own glory, to stand in the place of needy sinners. But again, this in itself could not satisfy the wrath of God, for the LAW had been broken and PUNISHMENT had to be exacted upon the guilty. And it was SIN that was the proximate cause and thus the transgression of the law needed to be paid for. God's wrath was poured out upon the incarnate Son of God and Christ suffered that eternal and infinite wrath and separation from God for His sheep. It was THEN, after the punishment had been received that God was satisfied. The resurrection was the justification of Christ in that it testified to His moral perfection, thus showing He Himself needed not to bring a sin offering for He was not guilty according to law.

God CANNOT simply forgive anyone, not even Christ, just because an offering brought before Him is perfect. JUSTICE must be done. The spotless Lamb of God was the only acceptable offering and worthy to receive the just punishment due in regard to sin, for "Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him." (2Cor 5:21)

So, is it you are not knowledgeable of what is required of the law of God and of God's infinite holiness? Or, are you in fact quite aware of these things but you chose to reject these truths? scratchchin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 11
Plebeian
OP Offline
Plebeian
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
It is not "evident IN SOME WAY God's attitude toward us was changed." This is a major flaw in your premise. We KNOW assuredly that God's 'attitude' wasn't the main issue that needed changing, for in fact, God's attitude cannot change. For if God's attitude needs changing, then He is imperfect. His eternal hatred of sinners and of the sin they commit is incontrovertible and will be infinitely demonstrated at the final judgment when all those who are outside of Christ are cast into eternal torment.

Hello Pilgrim,

If God's attitude does not "change" then how would you understand a verse such as this:

"And through Him to reconcile all to Him(making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens." (Col 1:20)

Does this reconciliation and "making peace" have only to do with our attitude towards God or does it involve God's attitude toward believers also?

Or how about these two verses:

Psalm 103:9 He will not always chide, nor will he keep his anger forever.

Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity
and passing over transgression
for the remnant of his inheritance?
He does not retain his anger forever,
because he delights in steadfast love.(Mic 7:18)

These verses seem to show a "change" in God's attitude from "Anger" to "not angry".

Originally Posted by Pilgrim
What you apparently do not grasp or perhaps reject is that the perfect sacrifice of the God-man was more than a simple offering. JUSTICE had to be done which demanded punishment; eternal punishment for sins committed against Almighty Jehovah. In fact, if any human being after Adam had lived a perfect life, they would still be liable for judgment for they are by nature and imputation, guilty before God. It took one who was inexorably holy, pure, undefiled... One who was the effulgence of God's own glory, to stand in the place of needy sinners. But again, this in itself could not satisfy the wrath of God, for the LAW had been broken and PUNISHMENT had to be exacted upon the guilty. And it was SIN that was the proximate cause and thus the transgression of the law needed to be paid for. God's wrath was poured out upon the incarnate Son of God and Christ suffered that eternal and infinite wrath and separation from God for His sheep. It was THEN, after the punishment had been received that God was satisfied. The resurrection was the justification of Christ in that it testified to His moral perfection, thus showing He Himself needed not to bring a sin offering for He was not guilty according to law.

God CANNOT simply forgive anyone, not even Christ, just because an offering brought before Him is perfect. JUSTICE must be done. The spotless Lamb of God was the only acceptable offering and worthy to receive the just punishment due in regard to sin, for "Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him." (2Cor 5:21)

So, is it you are not knowledgeable of what is required of the law of God and of God's infinite holiness? Or, are you in fact quite aware of these things but you chose to reject these truths? scratchchin

I don't want to reject anything that is true. Why not provide a few verses that speak about Jesus Christ suffering the wrath of God or being punished and we'll discuss.



A man cannot get anything unless it is given him by heaven. God gives to all life, and breath and all.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,126
Likes: 32
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,126
Likes: 32
Originally Posted by Charlemagne
Hello Pilgrim,

If God's attitude does not "change" then how would you understand a verse such as this:

"And through Him to reconcile all to Him(making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens." (Col 1:20)

Does this reconciliation and "making peace" have only to do with our attitude toward God or does it involve God's attitude toward believers also?

Or how about these two verses:

Psalm 103:9 He will not always chide, nor will he keep his anger forever.

Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity
and passing over transgression
for the remnant of his inheritance?
He does not retain his anger forever,
because he delights in steadfast love.(Mic 7:18)

These verses seem to show a "change" in God's attitude from "Anger" to "not angry".
Again, as stated above, it is utterly impossible for God to "change His mind" when the object to which His attitude rests. What happens is that the sinner who is under the just judgment and wrath of God is clothed with the righteousness of Christ, God sees that sinner as a totally different being; righteous by imputation. Thus, God is pleased with that individual because he/she is no longer "seen" as wicked but rather righteous in Christ. I already provided a text for this fundamental truth previously...

Quote
Ephesians 1:3-6 (ASV) "Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ: even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he [b]freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:
Until the sinner is united to Christ via repentance and a Spirit-wrought faith, which is instrumental in justification, the imputation of the Lord Christ's perfect righteousness (legal transaction), God's wrath rests upon Him (Eph 2:3). But after the sinner is united to the Lord Christ, he is deemed a son and brought into the kingdom of God wherein awaits a glorious inheritance promised to the saints. So again, it isn't that God "changes His mind", but rather the circumstances change and God's wrath which is appeased through the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ is no longer existent because the sinner is declared not guilty.

Originally Posted by Charlemagne
I don't want to reject anything that is true. Why not provide a few verses that speak about Jesus Christ suffering the wrath of God or being punished and we'll discuss.
See above in my last response to you. There are a number of passages referenced which clearly show God's wrath was poured out on the Lord Christ at the crucifixion. The wrath which was due to those for whom Christ died was owned by Christ and which He received by the Father. The Lord Christ was punished for the elect's transgressions of the law.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
1 member likes this: Readin
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,100
Likes: 7
Annie Oakley
Offline
Annie Oakley
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,100
Likes: 7
Hi Charlemagne,

Thank you for making this post. It provides an opportunity to consider this error which I have heard others make yet not articulate, so while I see some serious problems with this view, I am glad we can now discuss this topic.

This view denies some of the essential attributes of God such as His unchangeable nature. The God of the Bible is not a capricious or changeable God as is man. When we attribute such characteristics to God, we essentially create and idol, a god of our own making. A god made after our own image. This is not the God of the Bible. He is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow, He is unchangeable.

Regarding the wrath of God towards sinners, I would like to commend to your reading the article "The Wrath of God in Relation to the Atonement" by Frederick S. Leahy The doctrine of God is essential to our understanding of scripture that I think you might gain much from reading this for, "If we are wrong in our doctrine of God, we are wrong all along the line. We shall be in error in every doctrine of the Faith if we hold an erroneous doctrine of God. So our doctrine of God will relate powerfully to our doctrine of the Atonement. If, for example, we do not believe that God is a God of wrath as well as a God of love, and that his essential holiness means the inevitable punishment of sin, then we shall not believe in the substitutionary and vicarious nature of Christ’s death on the Cross. That is why the doctrine of God’s holy wrath borne by his Son at Calvary is repugnant to the liberal theologian. He has an erroneous view of God."

If you will read this very short piece, I think it might clarify some essential issues for you.

The Wrath of God in Relation to the Atonement


The Chestnut Mare
1 member likes this: Readin
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 11
Plebeian
OP Offline
Plebeian
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 11


Hello Chestnutmare,

There was this interesting statement in the article you linked:

Quote
It was not that the Father hated his Son on the Cross. There was no emotional anger on the Father’s part. He never ceased to love the Son in whom he was well pleased. There was, however, a judicial suffering caused by God. God’s wrath in this context should be seen not as a divine emotion, but as a divine act, a point that is stressed by Shedd in his masterly treatment of the subject. Calvin makes the same point:

Yet we do not suggest that God was ever inimical or angry toward him. How could he be angry toward his beloved Son, ‘in whom his heart reposed’? (cf. Matt. 3:17). How could Christ by his intercession appease the Father towards others, if he were himself hateful to God? (Institutes 2:16:11).

So, according to the article, the wrath of God that the Son endured on the cross was not an "emotional anger" but it was a "divine act".

Here is another quote from the article:

Quote
‘When it is stated that ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (Gal. 3:13), not only is it implied that we were ‘the children of wrath’ (Eph. 2:3), and under God’s curse, but also it is implied that when Christ was made a curse for us he was the object of divine wrath.


The author doesn't give us any definitive biblical statement that the Lord Jesus Christ was the object of the wrath of God but only says that it is "implied" within the statement that Jesus Christ became a curse for our sake.

Joseph is a type of Christ. The "cross" and "curse" that Joseph had to endure for the sake of his brethren was being sold into slavery and then cast into prison. In all of his trials and sufferings, Joseph's "quality"-- his faithfulness, obedience, endurance, devotion, etc.--shone through. His worthy qualities were manifested with his trials and even Pharoah could see that Joseph was a man worthy to be exalted to Pharoah's right hand to save Egypt from famine and death.

In scripture, sufferings and trials are a prerequisite for ruling and reigning. Paul says, "...and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him."(Rom 8:17) Can you imagine suffering with the Lord Jesus Christ? Are we enduring the wrath of God when we suffer with Him?

In Matthew 20:20-23 the mother of the sons of Zebedee come to Jesus and asks if they can sit on Jesus's left hand and right hand to rule with Him and Jesus asks them "are you able to be drinking the cup which I am about to be drinking?" That cup of trial and suffering is a prerequisite for reigning.

"Now you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. And I am covenanting a covenant with you, according as My Father covenanted a kingdom to Me that you may be eating and drinking at My table in My kingdom. And you will be seated on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."(Luke 22:28-30)

Do you notice the connection between partaking in the trials with Jesus Christ that the 12 disciples would endure and being seated on 12 thrones in the kingdom?

Here is the same promise to those who suffer for their faith in the tribulation:

"The one who is conquering, to him will I be granting to be seated with Me on My throne as I, also, conquer, and am seated with my Father on His throne."(Rev 3:21)

Jesus Christ conquered the world. He remained faithful and true no matter what trials and sufferings the world put Him through. His reward is to be seated on God's throne. Likewise, there is a reward for those who suffer with Christ also.

Suffering is a gift: "...for to you it is graciously granted, for Christ's sake,...to be suffering for His sake also, having the same struggle such as you are perceiving in me..."(Phil 1:29)

We can suffer for Jesus Christ's sake. If you suffer for someone's sake that doesn't automatically mean that you are suffering as their substitute. In this context, we can suffer for the truth of Who Jesus Christ is and what He has done and will do.

Why did Jesus Christ die? "For this Christ died and lives, that He should be Lord of the dead as well as of the living."(Rom 14:9)

"He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him..."(Phil 2:8,9)

God highly exalted Him because of His worthy qualities such as humility and obedience. When Israel left Egypt God told them that if they were obedient then God would bless them by making them into a kingdom of kings and priests and they would then be a blessing to the nations. So, hypothetically speaking, this is what "could" have happened(of course it really couldn't happen since the flesh is unable to keep the law):

Israel's obedience-->God's delight-->blesssing, power, authority-->blessing to the nations

What happened though was this:

Israel's disobedience(unworthiness)-->God's wrath-->curses of the law

Here is how we are blessed through Christ's obedience:

1) Christ's obedience, humilty, etc.(worthiness)
2) God delights in His obedient, worthy Son
3) God rewards and blesses His obedient Son with a throne, a kingdom, all power and authority in heaven and on earth, the inheritance of all things, etc.
4) The Son uses the power and authority given to Him to judge the living and the dead, abolish death, subject all to himself, etc.

Charles



A man cannot get anything unless it is given him by heaven. God gives to all life, and breath and all.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,126
Likes: 32
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,126
Likes: 32
1. A meaningful dialog can only exist if both parties respond in an appropriate manner, i.e., when questions posted are answered and they stay on topic. Unfortunately, you have not adhered to either of these principles, but rather you simply restate your premise and ignore nearly all that has been offered to you in the way of biblical references and questions posed. Perhaps you could go back and deal with the fundamental issues that the three of us have asked you to answer.

2. There are several fundamental issues which are the crux of the matter:
  1. The two natures of Christ [cf. The Chalcedon Creed.
  2. The nature of the atonement, i.e., what was the purpose of the atonement.
  3. What actually occurred on the cross and the relationship between God the Father and the incarnate Son?

Here is my observation thus far in this thread:

1. Nearly all your biblical references have no direct relevance to the crucifixion, which is the topic at hand. You make unwarranted inferential conclusions by ignoring the CONTEXT of the references used in your attempt to support your proposition; God's wrath was not poured out on Christ.

2. You have totally ignored the didactic references offered in defense of the biblical, historic, and confessional doctrine concerning the nature of the atonement, e.g., that the transgression of God's law demands punishment and the payment of debt owed; Propitiation, Ransom/Redemption, Sacrifice and Reconciliation.

3. It is unclear whether you even embrace the doctrine of a vicarious substitutionary atonement. Did the Lord Christ voluntarily become a substitute (Gk: huper) for those whom He came to save and thus go to the cross as a sinner (2Cor 5:21; Is 53:4-6,9-12; Zech 13:7; Gal 3:13; 1Pet 3:18), having their guilt imputed to Himself.

Originally Posted by Charlemagne
Here is another quote from the article:

Quote
‘When it is stated that ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (Gal. 3:13), not only is it implied that we were ‘the children of wrath’ (Eph. 2:3), and under God’s curse, but also it is implied that when Christ was made a curse for us he was the object of divine wrath.


The author doesn't give us any definitive biblical statement that the Lord Jesus Christ was the object of the wrath of God but only says that it is "implied" within the statement that Jesus Christ became a curse for our sake.
Really? That is EXACTLY what the author did. Being under a curse of God is not a statement of God's love toward anyone who is cursed (cf. Matt 25:41; Gal 3:10).

All that you wrote in the remainder of your reply is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand; Did Christ suffer the eternal wrath of God on the cross as one who was under the just judgment of God in order to redeem those who were actually guilty?


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
1 member likes this: Readin
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 21
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 21
"Implies" is definitive. You need to show that curse does not imply wrath in order to reject the statement.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 11
Plebeian
OP Offline
Plebeian
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 11
Hello Pilgrim,

Please be patient with me. As I've had time, I've been looking into how it is that
Jesus Christ was cursed on the cross and was made to be sin on the cross. This post is about Jesus Christ becoming a curse for our sakes.

There are different verses that would seem to be contradictory on the subject
of Jesus Christ being cursed by God on the cross and I've been meditating on
them and trying to reconcile them.

First of all, there are these two verses that would seem to say he was not
cursed by God, but only cursed by the mouths of blasphemous Jews both while
he hung on the cross as well as by those who claimed that He could not possibly
have been the Messiah because a proper messiah would never be cursed on
a tree. Here is Psalm 109:25-28:

I am an object of scorn to my accusers; when they see me, they wag their
heads. Help me, O Lord my God! Save me according to your steadfast love!
Let them know that this is your hand; you, O Lord, have done it! Let them
curse, but you will bless!
They arise and are put to shame, but your servant will be glad!(Psalm 109:25-28)

The words, "Let them curse, but you will bless!" are very instructive. In these
verses all of the scorn, derision, and mocking that our Lord received while He hung on the cross came from the wicked hearts and mouths of those who taunted and defamed(cursed) Him as He hung on the cross. It did not come from the heart or mind of God. God's attitude was "you will bless."

Paul says this:

1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit
of God ever says, "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except
in the Holy Spirit.

Paul says that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says, "Jesus is accursed!" Clearly this means that nobody could speak in the Spirit of God and say that Jesus Christ remains cursed now that He is no longer on the cross. But can one say, in the Spirit of God, that Jesus Christ was cursed(by God rather than mocked and cursed by men) while He hung on the cross?

Paul tells us, that for the Jew, a message of a crucified Messiah was a snare(1Cor 1:23). And in light of 1Cor 12:3, there must have been many who were saying that Jesus Christ could not have been the Messiah because He was cursed by God. When Paul presented the truth that Jesus Christ was the Christ in Acts 18:6 the Jews "blasphemed" and Paul says that he himself was a blasphemer and compelled Christians to blaspheme(Acts 26:11; 1Tim 1:13) Was this the blasphemy they spoke by saying that Jesus Christ was accursed?(1Cor 12:3)?

Having said that, these two verses would seem to indicate that Jesus
Christ was cursed by God while hanging on the cross:

Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree."

Deu 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The question is, when Paul says that He became a curse is He talking about the mocking, derision, and cursing that came from the mouths of wicked men against Him? That is to say the mocking and cursing that is false and untrue?(Psalm 109:25-28)

Here is another version of Deu 21:23:

Deu 21:23 ..for he that is hanged is a reproach unto G-d; that thou defile not thy land which HaShem thy G-d giveth thee for an inheritance.(Tanakh)

Various version read either "cursed by God" or "curse of God". There is a note on the NASB which said it is literally "curse of God." One Rabbi commentary said that this means that God Himself is being cursed or reproached by keeping the corpse up on the tree because man is made in the image of God and therefore to keep the man(even though he be a criminal) up long on the cross would "defile the land which God gave them for an inheritance."

James says that the tongue is used to curse men who are made in the likeness of God(James 3:9). How much worse is it to curse the perfect image of God, the Lord Jesus Christ! Certainly both Psalm 109 and many places in the New Testament tell us that Jesus Christ was cursed, reviled, scorned, etc. by the mouths of wicked men. And they certainly did not do this by the Spirit of God(1Cor 12:3).

My conclusion, in light of all of the evidence above, as well as the evidence that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was a delight, well pleasing, and a fragrant odor to God, is that when Paul says that Jesus Christ became a curse for us, he is not saying that our Lord was cursed by the heart or hand or mouth of God. Rather, He was cursed and an object of derision from the mouths of men who blasphemed Him.

God's attitude towards His Son was never one of wrath or cursing. It has always been one of delight and blessing. Likewise, when we are cursed or scorned for His sake, it is not that we are under God's curse or God's wrath. Indeed we should count it an honor and a joy.


A man cannot get anything unless it is given him by heaven. God gives to all life, and breath and all.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,126
Likes: 32
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,126
Likes: 32
Originally Posted by Charlemagne
Hello Pilgrim,

First of all, there are these two verses that would seem to say he was not
cursed by God, but only cursed by the mouths of blasphemous Jews both while he hung on the cross as well as by those who claimed that He could not possibly have been the Messiah because a proper messiah would never be cursed on a tree. Here is Psalm 109:25-28:

I am an object of scorn to my accusers; when they see me, they wag their heads. Help me, O Lord my God! Save me according to your steadfast love! Let them know that this is your hand; you, O Lord, have done it! Let them
curse, but you will bless!
They arise and are put to shame, but your servant will be glad!(Psalm 109:25-28)

The words, "Let them curse, but you will bless!" are very instructive. In these verses all of the scorn, derision, and mocking that our Lord received while He hung on the cross came from the wicked hearts and mouths of those who taunted and defamed(cursed) Him as He hung on the cross. It did not come from the heart or mind of God. God's attitude was "you will bless."
1. A little instructive note in regard to biblical hermeneutics.
  1. The New Testament interprets the Old Testament.
  2. The universal interprets the local.
  3. The didactic interprets the symbolic.
  4. The perspicuous (clear) interprets the vague (unclear).

2. Psalm 109:25-28 makes no reference whatsoever to the crucifixion but rather to a general statement as to how men will look upon the Messiah. Likewise, in contrast God (the Father) will bless Him as He is the Only Begotten Son. There are many such Messianic passages throughout the OT. Thus, this passage is irrelevant to proving your view.

What is more instructive is a passage which deals more specifically (see rule #3 & #4 above), with the Messiah as viewed by men but also in regard to His passive obedience, is Isaiah 53. I recommend you meditate on this passage which clearly speaks of the Messiah bearing the sins of His people, God 'bruising' Him, being put to grief by God, bearing the transgression of His people, etc. As I have repeatedly demonstrated from Scripture, the Lord Christ's death was a vicarious, substitutionary atonement in which God looked with wrath upon Him as a sinner (imputation of sin) and punished Him in room of the elect for whom He came to redeem.

Originally Posted by Charlemagne
Paul says this:

1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit
of God ever says, "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except
in the Holy Spirit.

Paul says that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says, "Jesus is accursed!" Clearly this means that nobody could speak in the Spirit of God and say that Jesus Christ remains cursed now that He is no longer on the cross. But can one say, in the Spirit of God, that Jesus Christ was cursed(by God rather than mocked and cursed by men) while He hung on the cross?

Paul tells us, that for the Jew, a message of a crucified Messiah was a snare(1Cor 1:23). And in light of 1Cor 12:3, there must have been many who were saying that Jesus Christ could not have been the Messiah because He was cursed by God. When Paul presented the truth that Jesus Christ was the Christ in Acts 18:6 the Jews "blasphemed" and Paul says that he himself was a blasphemer and compelled Christians to blaspheme(Acts 26:11; 1Tim 1:13) Was this the blasphemy they spoke by saying that Jesus Christ was accursed?(1Cor 12:3)?
Actually, I thank you for bringing up 1Cor 1:23 for it goes against your view and supports the Church's and my view. How?

1. Yes, unless a sinner has been regenerated; given a new spiritual nature which is predisposed to understanding the things of God and loving God and all that is good, they will hate the one true God and worship a 'god' of their own making.

2. The blaspheme which the Jews accused Paul of making was the same accusation which they accused Jesus of making, i.e., He claimed that He Himself was God (Jh 5:18; 10:33; Phil 2:6). In the perverted reasoning of the Jews, it was impossible that Jesus of Nazareth could be God and as proof, He was cursed via the crucifixion. Obviously, they had no understanding of all the prophetic writings which spoke of the Messiah as being cursed of God in order to redeem His people, albeit not being guilty of any personal sin.

Originally Posted by Charlemagne
Having said that, these two verses would seem to indicate that Jesus
Christ was cursed by God while hanging on the cross:

Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree."

Deu 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The question is, when Paul says that He became a curse is He talking about the mocking, derision, and cursing that came from the mouths of wicked men against Him? That is to say the mocking and cursing that is false and untrue?(Psalm 109:25-28)
Is it even disputable that God, through the inspiration of Paul, wrote that the redemption accomplished was in regard to the transgression of the LAW by becoming as one who had Himself transgressed that LAW (substitution and propitiation)? So again, ALL who have transgressed the holy LAW of God are under the just judgment and wrath of God. If the wrath and punishment of God were not specifically upon Christ, then no one would be saved from the wrath to come. I challenged you to deal with the four major terms which the NT uses to describe the Lord Christ's atonement; sacrifice, ransom/redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation, but you have not addressed any of those terms especially the most salient term to this discussion propitiation. To iterate, the biblical definition of propitiation is "to appease the wrath of an offended one through the removal of that which offends".

Originally Posted by Charlemagne
Here is another version of Deu 21:23:

Deu 21:23 ..for he that is hanged is a reproach unto G-d; that thou defile not thy land which HaShem thy G-d giveth thee for an inheritance.(Tanakh)

Various version read either "cursed by God" or "curse of God". There is a note on the NASB which said it is literally "curse of God." One Rabbi commentary said that this means that God Himself is being cursed or reproached by keeping the corpse up on the tree because man is made in the image of God and therefore to keep the man(even though he be a criminal) up long on the cross would "defile the land which God gave them for an inheritance."
1. The "Tanakh" is not an inspired text given by God and thus it has no authority to bind the conscience of anyone who professes to be a Christian.

2. Let's not overlook the immediate CONTEXT of this passage which reads:

Quote
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (ASV) "And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree; his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt surely bury him the same day; for he that is hanged is accursed of God; that thou defile not thy land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."
The Lord Christ was deemed 'worthy of death' by both men and God for He bore the sins of His people. And having been hung on a cross, Christ was accursed. Again we have a clear statement of the Messiah's vicarious substitutionary atonement. Without being 'cursed of God', redemption could not have been made in behalf of those whom the Father gave to His incarnate Son.

Originally Posted by Charlemagne
My conclusion, in light of all of the evidence above, as well as the evidence that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was a delight, well pleasing, and a fragrant odor to God, is that when Paul says that Jesus Christ became a curse for us, he is not saying that our Lord was cursed by the heart or hand or mouth of God. Rather, He was cursed and an object of derision from the mouths of men who blasphemed Him.
Unfortunately, your conclusion is not based upon any solid evidence but rather it is the expression of your presupposition which is in contradiction to the biblical evidence which I and others have presented to you. Your view denies one of the fundamental doctrines of God and His Scripture; the vicarious substitutionary nature of the atonement, without which there is no salvation possible. How do you reconcile your view with this incontrovertible truth? scratchchin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 75 guests, and 12 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John E, ManassehAmerican, jta, DiscipleEddie, atdcross
968 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
January
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
Today's Birthdays
Saved_n_kept
Popular Topics(Views)
1,317,216 Gospel truth