My full defense of PSA

DID JESUS PAY SATAN?

The text in 1 Corinthians 7:23 is key to understand the allegory of redemption and the paying of a price. "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings." In Titus we read that Jesus: "... gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness"

When you wanted to free a person from slavery, you bought that person to the owner. The money given to the owner was the ransom, the price.

Scripture shows in many places that we were slaves of sin. Who was our owner? Sin, wickedness, the flesh, spiritual death, "Satan".
Jesus redeemed us from that slavery. He paid the price to the owner.
So, if we want to follow the metaphor to its consequence, we could say that Jesus paid the price to Satan so that Satan could let us free.

Of course, this is all a metaphor: When Jesus wanted to cast demons out of a person, He just did it with a word, with the authority given by His Father. He didn't need to "pay" any price to the demons. By the same token, when He wanted to forgive a person, He did it with a word, without having to pay any price.


I'm trying to make you aware what is the consequence of taking allegorical language as if it was literal.

Let's now suppose we make up a soteriology based on this allegory. Let's call it the "Slave Purchase Model" or SPM.

While in PSA the thesis is that God became flesh to suffer the punishment that people deserved for their sins, in SPM the thesis is that God became flesh to pay the devil the price for our freedom. Both models derive from a literal interpretation of corresponding allegories.
As didactic tools, they both are beautiful and powerful. But when taken literally, both are absurd.


  • PSA cannot explain why God cannot just decide to punish, not punish, punish more or less, depending on his justice and mercy. Why someone has to take the place of the sinner. In the end of the day, Jesus did not spent eternity in hell, which is supposed to be the punishment that men deserved.
  • SPM cannot explain why Satan would be interested in the blood of Jesus, when he is interested in the suffering of men.
 
Last edited:
Brother @Dizerner is introducing here a strawman argument. Who in this Forum or among modern religions thinks that God is just love?
What I will always argue is that God’s justice and punishment are an expression of his love. They derive from his love.
Any attribute of God related to the salvation of men stems from his love. His love is a primary (John 3:16)

Punishment, then, is an instrument of his love.

When we punish our children, we do it out of love: we do it to help them to understand, learn and change.
Those whom I love, I rebuke and discipline. Therefore be zealous and repent” (Revelation 3:19).

Even in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, Abraham takes the time to make the rich understand why he is being punished. There is no hatred, no sadism. Abraham is so successful in making the rich understand, that he proves this understanding by thinking in a way to warn his relatives.
In the story of Jonah, the big punishment inflicted to Jonah is key for his spiritual awakening.
Saul in the road to Damascus is left blind so that he can repent, obey, and see. The experience of darkness was crucial for the experience of enlightment.

Our brother @Dizerner is right in saying that God hates sin… but sin is not punished. Men are punished, and men are of infinite value to God.
If our teenager son comes late at night drunk, and we punish him, we are not punishing drunkness. We are punishing our beloved son.
The difference is crucial.
The word Theology refers to the study of God, and God is Triune, a Trinity- Tri-Unity.

All doctrine begins with God at its starting point. God’s innate attributes are Aseity (God is self-sufficient), Infinite (without limit), Eternal (God has no beginning or end, he is timeless), Immutable (God is unchanging), Love (God is love), Holy (God is set-apart), Perichoresis (the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Divine Simplicity states God is Love because He is Love, not because He possesses that quality. God is the center of all the Divine Attributes. They point to His Being. God is not distinct from His nature.

God is Love. In love, the Father sent the Son on our behalf to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. We Love because He first loved us and sent His Son as 1 John 4:19 tells us.

We must understand how God's attributes all work in harmony together, not in opposition to each other. God's attributes and character flow from His love—for God is love.

God being love has nothing to do with His creation. That is secondary. God is love, and that love is perfect, lacking nothing within His Triune nature as God. Love, by definition, has to be expressed with another, which is why a unitarian god cannot be love. Love requires another to share and express that love, and it is what we see with the Triune God. God is love before anyone/anything existed.

Before creation, there was no sin. There was no judgment, wrath, mercy, grace, and justice. Why? Because those are God's secondary attributes concerning the creation and the fall. God's love is a primary attribute, like Holy is a primary one. Everything about God flows from His being Love which includes His secondary attributes, which were not in use until the creation and the fall.

Let’s examine how this works in conjunction with Gods sovereignty and His love. God is sovereign and also love. Both sovereignty and love as they intersect with God have been revealed plainly to us by God in His word. He has done this both through his word and his works. And God has sworn never to change for He is Immutable.

God's sovereignty is never exercised in violation of his love. His love is very everlasting, for God is love. The love of God has not the slightest shadow of variation, and it, not his sovereignty, is the basis upon which his moral standards rest. Any promotion of any doctrine that represents God as acting in a way that violates his love appealing to the fact that He is sovereign is found nowhere in the pages of scripture.

The fact that God can do something is not a justification for Him doing it. The fact that God can damn everyone without a reason is not an argument for justifying teaching that he does as in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. All that He can do is restricted by the standard that God values most which is His love. If it will violate love, God will not and cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God. And if it will violate love then it is not right. God cannot make it right by doing it just because He is sovereign. If God does it just because He is sovereign then He would not be God but something else.

What makes God, God is so intricately bound to his intent for doing things that if He were to do a thing just by virtue of the fact that He is sovereign and can do it rather than by virtue of the fact that it is loving? He would not be God as we know Him but something else. If sovereignty is what defines what makes up love in such a way that God doing anything is what defines love, then love has no meaning and can be anything and everything it is and opposes any time, which is ridiculous.

This below is from the Calvinist Theologian Abraham Kuyper on God is love:

“Before God created heaven and earth with all their inhabitants, the eternal Love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shone with unseen splendor in the divine Being. Love exists, not for the sake of the world, but for God's sake; and when the world came into existence, Love remained unchanged; and if every creature were to disappear, it would remain just as rich and glorious as ever. Love exists and works in the Eternal Being apart from the creature; and its radiation upon the, creature is but a feeble reflection of its being.

Love is not God, but God is Love; and He is sufficient to Himself to love absolutely and forever. He has no need of the creature, and the exercise of His Love did not begin with the creature whom He could love, but it flows and springs eternally in the Love-life of the Triune God. God is Love; its perfection, divine beauty, real dimensions, and holiness are not found in men, not even in the best of God's children, but scintillate only around the Throne of God.

The unity of Love with the Confession of the Trinity is the starting-point from which we proceed to base Love independently in God, absolutely independent of the creature or anything creaturely. This is not to make the divine Trinity a philosophic deduction from essential love. That is unlawful; if God had not revealed this mystery in His Word we should be totally ignorant of it. But since the Scripture puts the Triune Being before us as the Object of our adoration, and upon almost every page most highly exalts the mutual Love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and delineates it as an Eternal Love, we know and plainly see that this holy Love may never be represented but as springing from the mutual love of the divine Persons.

Hence through the mystery of the Trinity, the Love which is in God and is God obtains its independent existence, apart from the creature, independent of the emotions of mind and heart; and it rises as a sun, with its own fire and rays, outside of man, in God, in whom it rests and from whom it radiates.

In this way we eradicate every comparison of the Love of God with our love. In this way the false mingling ceases. In principle we resist the reversing of positions whereby arrogant man had succeeded in copying from himself a so-called God of Love, and into silencing all adoration. In this way the soul returns to the blessed confession that God is Love, and the way of divine mercy and pity is opened whereby the brightness of that Sun can radiate in a human way, i.e., in a finite and imperfect manner to and in the human heart, to the praise of God. “From his book on the Work of the Holy Spirit Volume 3, Second Chapter Love- xviii Love in the Triune Being of God “

God can do anything and everything is what sovereignty means by definition. God will only do what is loving and what is righteousness. Righteousness is the foundation of his throne. In other words, righteousness is the constraint of his sovereign rule. Love is how God rules His creation. Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Mercy and all the other attributes of God fall under the umbrella of His love. God being love is foundational to Gods nature, character, the gospel and the entire purpose for Christs 1st Coming. John 3:16. God rules by His love. The question we need to be asking ourselves is this, how does our Sovereign God display His love in conjunction with His rule over mankind?

hope this helps !!!
 
DID JESUS PAY SATAN?

The text in 1 Corinthians 7:23 is key to understand the allegory of redemption and the paying of a price. "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings." In Titus we read that Jesus: "... gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness"

When you wanted to free a person from slavery, you bought that person to the owner. The money given to the owner was the ransom, the price.

Scripture shows in many places that we were slaves of sin. Who was our owner? Sin, wickedness, the flesh, spiritual death, "Satan".
Jesus redeemed us from that slavery. He paid the price to the owner.
So, if we want to follow the metaphor to its consequence, we could say that Jesus paid the price to Satan so that Satan could let us free.

Of course, this is all a metaphor: When Jesus wanted to cast demons out of a person, He just did it with a word, with the authority given by His Father. He didn't need to "pay" any price to the demons. By the same token, when He wanted to forgive a person, He did it with a word, without having to pay any price.


I'm trying to make you aware what is the consequence of taking allegorical language as if it was literal.

Let's now suppose we make up a soteriology based on this allegory. Let's call it the "Slave Purchase Model" or SPM.

While in PSA the thesis is that God became flesh to suffer the punishment that people deserved for their sins, in SPM the thesis is that God became flesh to pay the devil the price for our freedom. Both models derive from a literal interpretation of corresponding allegories.
As didactic tools, they both are beautiful and powerful. But when taken literally, both are absurd.


  • PSA cannot explain why God cannot just decide to punish, not punish, punish more or less, depending on his justice and mercy. Why someone has to take the place of the sinner. In the end of the day, Jesus did not spent eternity in hell, which is supposed to be the punishment that men deserved.
  • SPM cannot explain why Satan would be interested in the blood of Jesus, when he is interested in the suffering of men.
Jesus paid the devil nothing, He conquered him.
 
I'm trying to make you aware what is the consequence of taking allegorical language as if it was literal.

Look, once you reject the witness of the Holy Spirit, it's gonna be lights out.

You'll just post endless mental sophistry that you think makes perfect sense to you because you've sold yourself to deception.

The question just is, at what moment have you just completely rejected God's witness, and prayer can extend that moment, and I believe it has.

But we are reaching the end here, as much I as truly care for you, and think you are a very nice personality, you refuse to humble yourself.

There's nothing more I can do at that point, it's game over.
 
Jesus paid the devil nothing, He conquered him.

All sin is a debt incurred against God, but it can give openings to the devil that allow him in for a time, as a judgment.

It's why he's currently roaming the earth seeking whom he may devour.
 
Jesus paid the devil nothing, He conquered him.
I agree 100%.
That’s why we should not interpret the figurative language of redemption, prices, payments, slavery, redeeming, as if all that were literal.
If we did, We would end up thinking that Jesus paid the “devil”, because the devil was our master, the prince of this world.
 
Last edited:
Love is how God rules His creation. Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Mercy and all the other attributes of God fall under the umbrella of His love. God being love is foundational to Gods nature, character, the gospel and the entire purpose for Christs 1st Coming. John 3:16. God rules by His love.
Amen.
 
All sin is a debt incurred against God, but it can give openings to the devil that allow him in for a time, as a judgment.

It's why he's currently roaming the earth seeking whom he may devour.
There is a principle within the law that is often ignored. That principle requires cooperation between two or three witnesses.

You know why the women taken in the very act of adultery was set free? Those that would condemn her wasn't left to demand her punishment.

The same fact is seen in those who would possibly witness against their own children for cursing them and demanding destruction for their own children under the law. Would you require punishment for your own children?

God couldn't have taken pleasure in inflicting punishment upon His own Son. As I've told you before, you're seeing the requirement of your sins in this when it is all about the value of Eternal Life. Death vs Eternal Life.
 
Yes, because Jesus bore the wrath of God for her sexual immorality that she, herself, deserved.

We call that "atonement."
No wrath from the Father to the Son is found in scripture. In the NT the word “ orge” is used 3 dozen times and not once is Jesus ever the one receiving wrath but He is the one who dishes out wrath. Your view is 100% unbiblical and unfounded in the NT.
 
No wrath from the Father to the Son is found in scripture. In the NT the word “ orge” is used 3 dozen times and not once is Jesus ever the one receiving wrath but He is the one who dishes out wrath. Your view is 100% unbiblical and unfounded in the NT.

Denying that Jesus took our wrath is what's unbiblical.

Get behind me Satan.

HE BORE OUR INIQUITIES AND IT PLEASED THE LORD TO CRUSH HIM.
 
Denying that Jesus took our wrath is what's unbiblical.

Get behind me Satan.

HE BORE OUR INIQUITIES AND IT PLEASED THE LORD TO CRUSH HIM.
Saying it is unbiblical since the Bible never says what you believe :

God poured out his wrath on Jesus
 
Was the cross a punishment God inflicted on Jesus? One verse that is used to teach that it was is Isaiah 53:10. Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Servant, who is understood to be Messiah. This passage, then, is understood by the Church to be about the cross and the atonement. Let’s read it, first, in the New International Version, which is in agreement with most other English versions.
Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer. (NIV)
Other versions have it similarly: “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief” (New King James Version). “And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick” (Young’s Literal Translation). “Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief” (English Standard Version).

Was the cross really about God crushing Jesus, bruising him, making him sick? I used to think so, and this was a verse I used to teach that. I taught that Jesus took God’s punishment in our place, that God crushed Jesus, venting his anger on him so he would not have to vent it on us. This is known as thepenal substitutionary theory of atonement. In recent years, however, I have had to let that theory go, because what I have seen in Scripture leads me to a different conclusion, a different understanding of the cross.

So what about Isaiah 53:10, then? Are the English versions quoted above the best rendering of Isaiah’s words? They are direct translations of the Hebrew text, at least of the best one that is available today, but do they give us the best sense of what Isaiah prophesied?

The Septuagint renders Isaiah 53:10. I could give you the Greek words themselves, which would be a simple cut and paste, but since many do not read Greek, I will quote the Brenton version, which is a classic English translation of the LXX. Then I will tell you about the Greek verb that is used:
The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. (Brenton)
The Greek word for “stroke” is plege and here speaks of a wound that has been inflicted by a blow. The verb for “purge” is katharizo and means to cleanse or purify. It is where we get our English word “catharsis.” The St. Athanasius Academy Septuagintversion has Isaiah 53:10 this way: “The Lord wishes to cleanse Him of His wound.”

The important thing to notice here is that God does not crush or bruise the Messiah, or make him sick. God does not inflict any wound on him. Quite the opposite, God is shown as cleansing and healing the wound!

The LXX reading seems to me more like what I find in the New Testament concerning the cross. When I think, for example, of how Peter and Stephen preached the gospel in the book of Acts, the cross was not something God did to Christ but something wicked men did. What God did was to raise Christ from the dead.

Isaiah 53 presents a stunning image of what Christ suffered in the atonement. But I do not think it is a picture of God crushing, bruising or punishing Christ.It is a portrait of God delivering Christ — and us through him. J,Doles

Katharizo​

kath-ar-id'-zo
Verb
NAS Word Usage - Total: 31
  1. to make clean, cleanse
    1. from physical stains and dirt
      1. utensils, food
      2. a leper, to cleanse by curing
      3. to remove by cleansing
    2. in a moral sense
      1. to free from defilement of sin and from faults
      2. to purify from wickedness
      3. to free from guilt of sin, to purify
      4. to consecrate by cleansing or purifying
      5. to consecrate, dedicate
  2. to pronounce clean in a levitical sense
Bill Mounce Greek

Dictionary:
καθαρίζω
Greek transliteration:
katharizō
Simplified transliteration:
katharizo
Principal Parts:
καθαριῶ, ἐκαθάρισα, -, κεκαθάρισμαι, ἐκαθαρίσθην
Numbers
Strong's number:
2511
GK Number:
2751
Statistics
Frequency in New Testament:
31
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag:
v-2a(1)
Gloss:
to make clean, cleanse, purify
Definition:
to cleanse, render pure, purify, Mt. 23:25; Lk. 11:39; to cleanse from leprosy, Mt. 8:2, 3; 10:8; met. to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for, Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 Jn. 1:7; to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin, Acts 15:9; 2 Cor. 7:1; to pronounce ceremonially clean, Acts 10:15; 11:9

Full article below:

καθαρίζω

to cleanse, render pure, purify, Mt. 23:25; Lk. 11:39; to cleanse from leprosy, Mt. 8:2, 3; 10:8; met. to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for, Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 Jn. 1:7; to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin, Acts 15:9; 2 Cor. 7:1; to...
www.billmounce.com
www.billmounce.com

Strongs
katharismos: a cleansing
Original Word: καθαρισμός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: katharismos
Phonetic Spelling: (kath-ar-is-mos')
Definition: a cleansing
Usage: cleansing, purifying, purification, literal, ceremonial, or moral; met: expiation.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 2512 katharismós (a masculine noun derived from 2511 /katharízō, "to purge") – purification, which results from God removing undesirable admixtures

hope this helps !!!
 
Yes, because Jesus bore the wrath of God for her sexual immorality that she, herself, deserved.

We call that "atonement."
Really. Jesus said he had power on earth to forgive sins.
Jesus even told His disciples that they were clean through the words He has spoken.

He is our atonement but not solely based upon death. He ever lives for us.

You've crafted this belief system that requires you to believe this. Easy fix. Just believe the Truth.

So where are your accusers?
 
Was the cross a punishment God inflicted on Jesus? One verse that is used to teach that it was is Isaiah 53:10. Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Servant, who is understood to be Messiah. This passage, then, is understood by the Church to be about the cross and the atonement. Let’s read it, first, in the New International Version, which is in agreement with most other English versions.

Other versions have it similarly: “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief” (New King James Version). “And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick” (Young’s Literal Translation). “Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief” (English Standard Version).

Was the cross really about God crushing Jesus, bruising him, making him sick? I used to think so, and this was a verse I used to teach that. I taught that Jesus took God’s punishment in our place, that God crushed Jesus, venting his anger on him so he would not have to vent it on us. This is known as thepenal substitutionary theory of atonement. In recent years, however, I have had to let that theory go, because what I have seen in Scripture leads me to a different conclusion, a different understanding of the cross.

So what about Isaiah 53:10, then? Are the English versions quoted above the best rendering of Isaiah’s words? They are direct translations of the Hebrew text, at least of the best one that is available today, but do they give us the best sense of what Isaiah prophesied?

The Septuagint renders Isaiah 53:10. I could give you the Greek words themselves, which would be a simple cut and paste, but since many do not read Greek, I will quote the Brenton version, which is a classic English translation of the LXX. Then I will tell you about the Greek verb that is used:

The Greek word for “stroke” is plege and here speaks of a wound that has been inflicted by a blow. The verb for “purge” is katharizo and means to cleanse or purify. It is where we get our English word “catharsis.” The St. Athanasius Academy Septuagintversion has Isaiah 53:10 this way: “The Lord wishes to cleanse Him of His wound.”

The important thing to notice here is that God does not crush or bruise the Messiah, or make him sick. God does not inflict any wound on him. Quite the opposite, God is shown as cleansing and healing the wound!

The LXX reading seems to me more like what I find in the New Testament concerning the cross. When I think, for example, of how Peter and Stephen preached the gospel in the book of Acts, the cross was not something God did to Christ but something wicked men did. What God did was to raise Christ from the dead.

Isaiah 53 presents a stunning image of what Christ suffered in the atonement. But I do not think it is a picture of God crushing, bruising or punishing Christ.It is a portrait of God delivering Christ — and us through him. J,Doles

Katharizo​

kath-ar-id'-zo
Verb
NAS Word Usage - Total: 31
  1. to make clean, cleanse
    1. from physical stains and dirt
      1. utensils, food
      2. a leper, to cleanse by curing
      3. to remove by cleansing
    2. in a moral sense
      1. to free from defilement of sin and from faults
      2. to purify from wickedness
      3. to free from guilt of sin, to purify
      4. to consecrate by cleansing or purifying
      5. to consecrate, dedicate
  2. to pronounce clean in a levitical sense
Bill Mounce Greek

Dictionary:
καθαρίζω
Greek transliteration:
katharizō
Simplified transliteration:
katharizo
Principal Parts:
καθαριῶ, ἐκαθάρισα, -, κεκαθάρισμαι, ἐκαθαρίσθην
Numbers
Strong's number:
2511
GK Number:
2751
Statistics
Frequency in New Testament:
31
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag:
v-2a(1)
Gloss:
to make clean, cleanse, purify
Definition:
to cleanse, render pure, purify, Mt. 23:25; Lk. 11:39; to cleanse from leprosy, Mt. 8:2, 3; 10:8; met. to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for, Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 Jn. 1:7; to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin, Acts 15:9; 2 Cor. 7:1; to pronounce ceremonially clean, Acts 10:15; 11:9

Full article below:

καθαρίζω

to cleanse, render pure, purify, Mt. 23:25; Lk. 11:39; to cleanse from leprosy, Mt. 8:2, 3; 10:8; met. to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for, Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 Jn. 1:7; to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin, Acts 15:9; 2 Cor. 7:1; to...
www.billmounce.com
www.billmounce.com

Strongs
katharismos: a cleansing
Original Word: καθαρισμός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: katharismos
Phonetic Spelling: (kath-ar-is-mos')
Definition: a cleansing
Usage: cleansing, purifying, purification, literal, ceremonial, or moral; met: expiation.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 2512 katharismós (a masculine noun derived from 2511 /katharízō, "to purge") – purification, which results from God removing undesirable admixtures

hope this helps !!!
Yes. Christ submitted Himself to the judgment of sinful men. Thank you Lord Jesus. This humiliated the Son.
 
GOD IS THE JUDGE.

Not man, that is idolatry.


Any devil that tells me Jesus didn't take the wrath I deserve can GET LOST and GO BACK TO THE HELL they came from.

This is my salvation and my Savior.


These deniers will find out soon enough God has wrath on sin Lord have mercy.
 
GOD IS THE JUDGE.

Not man, that is idolatry.


Any devil that tells me Jesus didn't take the wrath I deserve can GET LOST and GO BACK TO THE HELL they came from.

This is my salvation and my Savior.


These deniers will find out soon enough God has wrath on sin Lord have mercy.
Notice in the lexicon the only reference to Christ and wrath is when He dishes out wrath and Scripture never references Him as the recipient of wrath.

Strong's Concordance
orgé: impulse, wrath
Original Word: ὀργή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: orgé
Phonetic Spelling: (or-gay')
Definition: impulse, wrath
Usage: anger, wrath, punishment, vengeance,indignation
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3709: ὀργή

ὀργή, ὀργῆς, ἡ (from ὀργάω to teem, denoting an internal motion, especially that of plants and fruits swelling with juice (Curtius, § 152); cf. Latinturgerealicui forirascialicui in Plautus Cas. 2, 5, 17; Most. 3, 2, 10; cf. German arg, Aerger), in Greek writings from Hesiod down "the natural disposition, temper, character; movement or agitation of soul, impulse, desire, any violent emotion," but especially (and chiefly in Attic) anger. In Biblical Greek anger, wrath, indignation (on the distinction between it and θυμός, see θυμός, 1): Ephesians 4:31; Colossians 3:8; James 1:19f; μετ' ὀργῆς, indignant (A. V. with anger), Mark 3:5; χωρίς ὀργῆς, 1 Timothy 2:8; angerexhibited in punishing, hence, used for the punishment itself (Demosthenes or. in middle § 43): of the punishments inflicted by magistrates, Romans 13:4; διά τήν ὀργήν, i. e. because disobedience is visited with punishment, Romans 13:5. The ὀργή attributed to God in the N. T. is that in God which stands opposed to man's disobedience, obduracy (especially in resisting the gospel) and sin, and manifests itself in punishing the same: John 3:36; Romans 1:18; Romans 4:15; Romans 9:22a; Hebrews 3:11; Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 14:10; Revelation 16:19; Revelation 19:15; absolutely, ἡ ὀργή, Romans 12:19 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 594 (553)); σκεύη ὀργῆς, vessels into which wrath will be poured (at the last day), explained by the addition κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν, Romans 9:22b; ἡ μελλουσα ὀργή, which at the last day will be exhibited in penalties, Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7 (others understand in these two passages the (national) judgments immediately impending to be referred to — at least primarily); also ἡ ὀργή ἡ ἐρχομένη, 1 Thessalonians 1:10; ἡμέρα ὀργῆς, the day on which the wrath of God will be made manifest in the punishment of the wicked (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 30, 2 a.), Romans 2:5; and ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ μεγάλη τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ (Revelation 6:17; see ἡμέρα, 3 at the end); ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργή τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπί τινα, the wrath of God cometh upon one in the infliction of penalty (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 40, 2 a.), Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6 (T Tr WH omit; L brackets ἐπί etc.); ἔφθασε (ἔφθακεν L text WH marginal reading) ἐπ' αὐτούς ἡ ὀργή, 1 Thessalonians 2:16; so ἡ ὀργή passes over into the notion of retribution and punishment, Luke 21:23; Rom. (Romans 2:8); ; Revelation 11:18; τέκνα ὀργῆς, men exposed to divine punishment, Ephesians 2:3; εἰς ὀργήν, unto wrath, i. e. to undergo punishment in misery, 1 Thessalonians 5:9. ὀργή is attributed to Christ also when he comes as Messianic judge, Revelation 6:16. (The Sept. for עֶבְרָה, wrath, outburst of anger, זַעַם, חֵמָה, חָרון, קֶצֶף, etc.; but chiefly for אַף.) Cf. Ferd. Weber, Vom Zorne Gottes. Erlang. 1862; Ritschl, Die christl. Lehre v. d. Rechtfertigung u. Versöhnung, ii., p. 118ff.

Conclusion :Gods wrath only falls upon the rebellious, ungodly, reprobates who refuse to believe the gospel and never on believers, the righteous, the saints and especially the Holy, Righteous, Sinless Sons of God. Jesus is the One who dishes out Gods wrath not the One who receives Gods wrath as PSA teaches. A simple word search will prove wrath is never used of the Son as the One who receives wrath but in fact is the One who dishes out the wrath of God almighty.

hope this helps !!!
 
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a Reformation invention that finds no support throughout the first millennium of the church. It has also been criticized as a distortion of Scripture, nowhere clearly taught in the Old or New Testaments. It has been blasted as a barbaric distortion of God’s character that places Him in the category of pagan gods such as Molech, depicting Him as a “monster God” It shows God as some sort of violent, pagan deity. Is it incompatible with the loving God of the Bible as revealed through Jesus Christ
 
GOD IS THE JUDGE.

Not man, that is idolatry.


Any devil that tells me Jesus didn't take the wrath I deserve can GET LOST and GO BACK TO THE HELL they came from.

This is my salvation and my Savior.


These deniers will find out soon enough God has wrath on sin Lord have mercy.


Heb 9:11 But now Christ has come as the high priest of the good things to come. He passed through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation,
Heb 9:12 and he entered once for all into the most holy place not by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood, and so he himself secured eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled consecrated them and provided ritual purity,
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.
Heb 9:15 And so he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the eternal inheritance he has promised, since he died to set them free from the violations committed under the first covenant.
 
Back
Top Bottom