The Wrath of God

This question applies equally to all theories of atonement.
If Christ was victorious over sin and death, then why do we die?
If death is the wage of sin, and Christ atoned for our sin, then why do we die?

 

It doesn't.

 

These threads, 3 or 4 of them now, have been useful to me because in my naivety I actually did not know that the idea of penal substitution was in dispute. As pointed out above, there was a whole sacrificial system that dealt with sins. I am puzzled by the reluctance to link this to wrath. The principle of requiring blood and the violent death of the sacrifices to me in itself says "wrath". True, the wrath is directed at sin itself but the animal was slain. When God was pleased with such a sacrifice it in itself shows wrath even though it is true that God was not actually angry with the animal. It is clear in scripture that God shows what would be described as "wrath". Somebody went through and counted and the claim is that wrath is spoken of more than love.

As to the idea that God's wrath is only directed towards the guilty - not only are there verses that directly contradict that in the case of Christ, but you are getting at the heart of all traditional Christianity. All atonement theology that has humans in jeopardy because of sin and has the cross as a remedy in any way means that Jesus is going to pay the penalty or you will. The whole scandal of the cross is the idea that an innocent Christ, actually one with God, had sins laid on him There are reams of theology on why Jesus Christ was uniquely qualified for this role of being the one true sacrifice, by being fully man, fully God, and being completely sinless in life.

 

We don't.

John 11:26​

 

Agreed that it makes perfect sense … but, is it not curious that we can find no verse that actually SAYS that?

It is not the WHAT that is in question (scripture is clear on that), rather it is the WHY that men assume what Scripture does not explicitly state. That creates room for HUMAN ERROR.

 

An awful lot of theology is based on what makes sense after reading scripture. As we go back and forth on this site for example we share scriptures that seem to indicate man is capable of believing on his own, man is not capable of believing on his own, God wants to save everyone, God is not going to save everyone, God is all powerful, people act according to free will, God is totally sovereign. And so on. We take scriptures and apply them based on our background, what we are currently dealing with and calling upon God the most for at the time, what our method of thought or worldview is, and probably most importantly, how the Holy Spirit is ministering to us. Now regarding "wrath" upon Jesus, I will take your word for it if you say the Bible doesn't specifically say God was furious at Jesus at the time of the crucifixion. But I think that based on the many verses showing Jesus being made sin for us, our iniquities being laid on him, etc., that it is in no way an improper exegesis to say that this indicated God's wrath. The other thing I should point out is that although I have just started reading up on this subject and admit I have only scratched the surface, when I read theologians advocating penal substitution I don't find an emphasis on claiming God was angry at Jesus. It would be wrong to portray penal substitution as Jesus trying to come up with a way to placate a vengeful, angry, deity. I'm not saying you or JonC do that but some of the modern theologians do, I have discovered.

 

I had to catch up reading this thread, but a couple folks took the second death out of context.

Those that die without Christ are not immediately cast into the second death, such is the scene of Rev 20 as expressed in an earlier post on this thread.

With the exception of Revelation 20, in nearly every other instance the word "death" occurs in Scripture it is that of the physical no longer being viable.

"The wages of sin is death." That is not in dispute. For all die for all have sinned and continue to do so even as believers, but that sin of a believer does not bring condemnation, for the believer has eternal life.

Second, the believer is Justified by the blood. (Romans 5:9) The law alienates, the blood justifies.

The justification was not because of stripes, or wounds, but by the blood.

There was no need for the Wrath of God to be poured out on His Son, for the blood of the Son justifies all who believe in Him. Did Christ believe in His own authority and power to both give His life a ransom for many and to raise Himself from the grave? Did Christ believe that the Father / Son relationship was one of unity not only of purpose but of very thought, deeds, motivation, and desires?

There is no place in Scriptures for the Wrath of God to be poured out upon the Son.

 

Someone posted concerning the slaying of the sacrifices.

At no point was that action brutalizing the lamb.

Such thinking as the animals were brutalized like our Lord, is wrong.
They were not whipped, they were not wounded with thorns, they did not have their beard torn out, their vision marred, the legs and cloves nailed to boards, or laughed at and mocked.

The slaying of the lambs was swift and certain, not brutal.

 

John 11:25-26 does not contradict Hebrews 9:27. In John 11:25-26 there is a phrase not commonly translated, ". . . into the age." Referring to into the age to come. Revelation 21.

 

I like the way the Berean Study Bible renders John 11

24Martha replied, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” 25Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me will live, even though he dies. 26And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27“Yes, Lord,” she answered, “I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.”​

 

The atonement is in the Bible. We are arguing, in part, the meaning of words. 1 Corinthians 15:3, ". . . how that Christ died for on behalf of our sins . . . ." In our place so we do no suffer our penal consequence which is forever. That simply stated is a penal substitution. It is a matter of what the atonement does. And a matter of words to describe it.

 

For what was substituted?

Did He become unrighteous when we became righteous? Never, for He remains without sin.

Do believers not suffer because He suffered? No, even Paul said we are everyday as lambs slaughtered.

Do we not live pain free because he experienced pain? Of course not, for my and your pain of the heart, mind and body are real.

So, in what was He the substitute?

Shedding the blood and dying were not as a substitution, bur as a satisfaction.

The wages of sin still result in physical death, and even then if the believer dies physically, they have eternal life (John 11)

"There is no condemnation for them in Christ" (Romans 8) is again the act of the Victor not one brutalized.

 

Slitting the throat of an animal that had been carefully groomed and selected for perfection has very obvious connections to the sacrifice of Christ. If you are referring to some other post then take it up with them but I didn't say the animals were tortured like you describe above . I do say that the sacrifices were easily identifiable as representing the sacrifice of Christ and that the way the animal sacrifices were done clearly indicate in themselves, God's wrath on sin - with the animal suffering the penalty.

The question I don't see satisfactorily answered by any of the other theories is why they need actual blood, proving the brutal slaying of the sacrifice. I know for sure that some of the modern theories are intentionally designed to get away from this. It makes sense, if you can deconstruct something as basic as the necessity for Christ's blood to be shed on our behalf you can move on to reducing Christianity to a set of moral teachings.

 

Satisfaction does not adequately describe what happened. If you go back and read in Leviticus the details of the sacrifices, including the lamb, the bullock, and especially the goat that is led away into the wilderness and you will see that a transferring of sin, substitution, was occurring.

 

We still disagree.

God's wrath remains, and is not poured upon the Son nor any sacrifice before. Rather, the sacrifice blood was a satisfaction to the Lord, and not the animal itself other then it had to be of the purist found, for the animal was disposed of by burning until nothing remained.

The wrath of God is poured out in the future events yet to unfold when the church is removed from the earth. For the believers are not appointed to those days of wrath. If we hardly escape, how great will be that time when the wrath is poured out!

There is no doubt that our Lord did greatly suffer.

However, the suffering He endured was not uncommon of any that underwent interrogation by the Jews and the Romans, nor those crucified. What is remarkable is that He was innocent and both the authorities (Jewish and Roman) knew it. This is verified in Peter's sermon..."You crucified ..."

So, how then does Isaiah's remarks fit.

As I wounded Him, I was forgiven for my transgressions.
As I caused Him to swell with bruises, my iniquities were forgiven.
As I chastised and ridiculed Him, my turmoil was replaced with peace.
As I scourged Him with too many lashes to count, my hatred of others was removed.

For did not the Lord even say just as He was being lifted up, "Forgive them, Father. They don't know what they are doing."

Of course, my wife has been telling me that for years, and said she is about out of forgiveness. :)