The Nature of God in the Atonement

[civic]

To all readers :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.

BIBLICAL 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 !!!

 

[TomL]

For the record, @TomL, I do not believe that the Messiah "became sin" in a literal or ontological sense; however, I do fully affirm the penal aspect of His atoning work.

Well that is a start

First: Isaiah 53 - "made sin" concept - Hebrew Verbs
In Isaiah 53, the concept that relates to "becoming sin" is primarily found in two key Hebrew verbs:

Isaiah 53:6 —Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own derech (way; see Prov 16:25); and Hashem hath laid on him [Moshiach] the avon (iniquity, the guilt that separates from G-d) of us all.

Text: וַֽיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲוֹן כֻּלָּנוּ

Transliteration: vayhwh hipgîaʿ bô ʾet ʿavon kullanu

Translation: "and YHWH has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

That simply indicates that he carries our sin away

it says nothing at all about God being unable to forgive sin or that he needed to vent his wrath on his innocent son.

The bible teaches forgiveness.

Isaiah 55:7 (LEB) — 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the man of sin his thoughts. And let him return to Yahweh, that he may take pity on him, and to our God, for he will forgive manifold.

PSA teaches payment, not forgiveness.

Payment is shown to be contrary to forgiveness

Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not…

That we are to be like God and forgive one another

Luke 11:4 (KJV 1900) — 4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Mark 11:25 (LEB) — 25 And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your sins.”

Ephesians 4:32 (LEB) — 32 Become kind toward one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as also God in Christ has forgiven you.

Does that mean we can first demand payment and then upon payment forgive?

If we are told to freely forgive one another as God has forgiven us (Eph. 4:32), does this imply we ought to demand retribution before justice can be satisfied? Does this not betray the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant where the servant is actively punished for demanding payment, rather than forgiving freely as his master did to him? (Matt. 18:21-35)
Hess, William. Crushing the Great Serpent: Did God Punish Jesus? (p. 50). Kindle Edition.


Psa teaches God needed to be propitiated - that favorable disposed to man

The bible however shows that he was.

John 3:16 (LEB) — 16 For in this way God loved the world, so that he gave his one and only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.

PSA teaches God needed to be reconciled to man in the atonement

The bible shows the atonement was for the reconciliation of man not God

2 Corinthians 5:18–19 (LEB) — 18 And all these things are from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ, and who has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

PSA teaches the Father forsook the son causing a split/ a fracturing of the godhead

The bible shows he did not

Psalm 22:24 (LEB) — 24 because he has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and has not hid his face from him; but he listened to him when he cried for help.

Hebrews 5:7–9 (LEB) — 7 who in the days of his flesh offered up both prayers and supplications, with loud crying and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard as a result of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered, 9 and being perfected, he became the source of eternal salvation to all those who obey him,

 

[TomL]

Yes the heresies about God pile up on each other in the PSA " theory" .

Some of the claims are pretty astonishing.

 

[civic]

PSA is indefensible and nowhere found in the pages of Scripture- Substitution, Ransom, Passover, Expiation the forgiveness of sins is what Jesus taught about His own atonement.

We see God the Son described His own death, the Atonement in 4 ways. Theology begins with God. He said His death was a Substitution, a Ransom, a Passover, a Sacrifice and for forgiveness of sins- Expiation.

1- Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13 Substitution, Ransom

2-No man takes my life I lay it down and I will take it up again- John 10:18 Substitution, Ransom

3- I lay My life down for the sheep- John 10:15 Substitution, Ransom

4- Jesus viewed His death as the Passover John 6:51

5-just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a Ransom for many- Matthew 20:28

6-I Am the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep- Substitution, John 10:11

7-Jesus said in John 11:50- nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish- Substitution

8 -This is my blood of the Covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins- Matthew 26:28

Conclusion: Jesus never hinted at PSA and He is the AUTHORITY on the topic, not theologians, pastors, calvin, etc.....

Do you believe Jesus or what you have wrogly been taught by the traditions of men ?

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Some of the claims are pretty astonishing.

Yes PSA pits the Father against the Son and the Holy Spirit against the Father and Son. Its a divided Godhead. A false teaching that should be avoided by everyone who claims to be a Trinitarian.

There is No Tri-Unity in the Godhead with the teachings of PSA. There is Dis-Unity, anger, wrath, retribution, vengeance, anger, division, separation is the Dysfunctional relationships within the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!

As Jesus said: You make void the word of God by your traditions.

hope this helps !!!

 

[TomL]

Yes PSA pits the Father against the Son and the Holy Spirit against the Father and Son. Its a divided Godhead. A false teaching that should be avoided by everyone who claims to be a Trinitarian.

There is No Tri-Unity in the Godhead with the teachings of PSA. There is Dis-Unity, anger, wrath, retribution, vengeance, anger, division, separation is the Dysfunctional relationships within the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!

As Jesus said: You make void the word of God by your traditions.

hope this helps !!!

It really does require some pretty astonishing things

 

[civic]

It really does require some pretty astonishing things

yes "unbelievable " ones.

 

[TomL]

yes "unbelievable " ones.

The effect on the trinity is the most astonishing to me

 

[Dizerner]

So you believe Christ was transformed into sin.

I believe what Scripture SAYS.

You DO NOT.

He was no longer man or God and the trinity was now split.

False, just bogus arguments.

It's a relational not an ontological break.

 

[TomL]

For the record, @TomL, I do not believe that the Messiah "became sin" in a literal or ontological sense; however, I do fully affirm the penal aspect of His atoning work.


First: Isaiah 53 - "made sin" concept - Hebrew Verbs
In Isaiah 53, the concept that relates to "becoming sin" is primarily found in two key Hebrew verbs:

Isaiah 53:6 —Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own derech (way; see Prov 16:25); and Hashem hath laid on him [Moshiach] the avon (iniquity, the guilt that separates from G-d) of us all.

Text: וַֽיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲוֹן כֻּלָּנוּ

Transliteration: vayhwh hipgîaʿ bô ʾet ʿavon kullanu

Translation: "and YHWH has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

Hebrew Verb: הִפְגִּיעַ (hipgîaʿ) — root פָּגַע (pāgaʿ)

Morphology: Hiphil (causative) perfect 3rd masculine singular

Laid upon as in taking away our sin yes

Just like the scapegoat which had the Israelites sins laid upon it and was released unharmed, carrying the Israelites sins away into the wilderness

Leviticus 16:21–22 (LEB) — 21 And Aaron shall place his two hands on the living goat’s head, and he shall confess over it all the Israelites’ iniquities and all their transgressions for all their sins, and he shall put them on the goat’s head, and he shall send it away into the desert with a man standing ready. 22 Thus the goat shall bear on it to a barren region all their guilt, and he shall send the goat away into the desert.

Meaning: In the hiphil stem, pāgaʿ can mean "to cause to meet," "to intercede," "to burden," or even "to strike upon."

Force: YHWH caused the iniquity of all to strike against or encounter Him; this sets the background for substitution.

Isaiah 53:10 —Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Hashem to bruise him; He hath put him to suffering; when Thou shalt make his nefesh an asham offering for sin, he (Moshiach) shall see zera [see Psalm 16 and Yn 1:12 OJBC], He shall prolong his yamim (days) and the chefetz Hashem (pleasure, will of Hashem) shall prosper in his [Moshiach's] hand.

an offering for sin. Hebrew. 'aham = the trespass offering. Ref to Pentateuch, for this is a peculiarly Levitical word (Lev_14:12, Lev_14:21), and cannot be understood apart from it. In Psa 40 it is the aspect of the whole burnt offering.

'asham , trespass , to sin through error or ignorance. Cp. Lev_4:13; Lev_5:2-3. Num_5:6-7. Jdg_21:22. 1Ch_21:3. 2Ch_19:10; 2Ch_28:10; 2Ch_28:13. 'Asham is a breach of commandment, done in ignorance, but, when the guilt is proved, requiring atonement.

Yes, God was pleased in that Christ was making atonement and healing mankind. There is nothing within the text stating God was pleased because he had an opportunity to pour out his wrath and satisfy his need for punishment by taking it out upon his son.

 

[Dizerner]

It really does require some pretty astonishing things

The Gospel is supposed to be astonishing, eternal hell is astonishing, a God who pays for my sin is astonishing, a God who becomes man is astonishing, my own evil is astonishing.

You argue nothing.

 

[Dizerner]

The effect on the trinity is the most astonishing to me

The cost of your sin was ASTONISHING.

But you want your sin to be "no big deal."

Yeah, that appeals to the pride of man.

 

[Johann]

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.

Denying Scripture and the testimony of Scripture.

The direct Hebrew of Isaiah 53:10 says:

וַֽיהוָה חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ הֶחֱלִי (vayhwh ḥafeṣ dakkəʾô heḥĕlî)

חָפֵץ (ḥafeṣ) — "he delighted" or "he willed."

דַּכְּאוֹ (dakkəʾô) — from דָּכָא (dākāʾ), "to crush, to break by violence."

הֶחֱלִי (heḥĕlî) — causative "he made sick."

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Hashem to bruise him; He hath put him to suffering; when Thou shalt make his nefesh an asham offering for sin, he (Moshiach) shall see zera [see Psalm 16 and Yn 1:12 OJBC], He shall prolong his yamim (days) and the chefetz Hashem (pleasure, will of Hashem) shall prosper in his [Moshiach's] hand.

Guess we can cut this out of our Bible--

These verbs, in their original Hebrew force, undeniably describe direct divine causality:

YHWH willed to crush and to cause grief.

The text does not say that wicked men only crushed him (though they did), but that YHWH Himself willed the crushing.

Right here, in Scripture-so according to your logic we say man caused Messiahs grief and deny YHWH cause in crushing Him.

Therefore, Penal Substitution is directly grounded in the Hebrew grammar, not a later theory imported onto the text.


"The LXX translation in Brenton’s version softens it: 'The Lord is pleased to purge him from his stroke' (LXX). Thus, it is not about crushing but cleansing."



It is true that the LXX reads:

κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς

κύριος (the Lord)

βούλεται (wills, desires)

καθαρίσαι (to cleanse, purify)

αὐτὸν (him)

τῆς πληγῆς (of the wound/blow)

However, the Greek LXX does not deny the reality of the wound (πληγή), which is a violent stroke inflicted by a blow, as the you admitted.

In fact, πληγή (plēgē) throughout the LXX and NT (e.g., Revelation 15–16) refers to divine judgments and violent punishments.

Thus, the LXX assumes the wound exists and is severe - it only shifts emphasis slightly toward God's cleansing action after the suffering, not denying the prior violent crushing.

In short-- the LXX does not erase the concept of violent suffering; it presupposes it.
The cleansing only occurs after the Servant is struck violently.


"The New Testament shows that wicked men, not God, killed Christ; Peter and Stephen say so."



True-Peter in Acts 2:23 says,

"this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men."

Notice carefully.

a) God’s sovereign will ("definite plan and foreknowledge") is the first cause.
b) Lawless men ("hands of lawless men") are the secondary agents.

Thus, Scripture teaches both divine sovereignty and human culpability simultaneously.

God ordained the cross for atonement purposes, even while wicked men freely acted out their evil.
Penal substitution does not deny human guilt; it includes it while affirming God’s sovereign redemptive purpose.


["καθαρίζω (katharizō) means to cleanse, so Isaiah 53:10 in the LXX focuses on healing, not punishment."]



The verb καθαρίζω indeed primarily means "to cleanse" or "to purify," often in a ceremonial or moral sense.

However, cleansing presupposes defilement or contamination caused by something violent, wrong, or deathly.

In biblical categories, cleansing often follows sacrifice-- a sacrifice involves the shedding of blood and death first (Leviticus 16:19, Hebrews 9:22).

Thus, cleansing in the LXX still assumes prior suffering and death - it does not negate it but builds upon it.

Example.

Hebrews 9:22:

"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (cleansing) of sins."

καθαρίζω depends upon bloodshed (death) for its effect.
Therefore, even in the LXX, cleansing proceeds from, not in denial of, violent atoning death.

:


False Claim Corrected Biblical Truth
God did not crush Christ — He only healed Him God willed to crush the Servant (Hebrew דָּכָא), and then raised and healed Him
LXX denies divine crushing LXX assumes the wound (πληγή) and shows God cleansing after suffering
New Testament blames men only New Testament teaches divine plan and human guilt together (Acts 2:23)
Cleansing cancels punishment Cleansing comes after atoning death and sacrificial suffering

So---Penal Substitution remains fully supported both by Isaiah 53 (Hebrew text and LXX) and by the New Testament witness.


The cross is God’s will, man's guilt, Christ’s substitutionary suffering, divine justice satisfied, and believers cleansed.

I encourage you to read Bob Utley’s exposition on Isaiah 53, where he carefully and fully explains the text from both the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) traditions--

Your fundamental error lies in denying what YHWH Himself actively did to the Son, while affirming only what wicked men did to the Messiah, thereby missing the full testimony of Scripture regarding the Father's will in the atonement.

J.

 

[Dizerner]

WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!

No one is waking up to your lies.

Jesus paid the price.

 

[Johann]

Laid upon as in taking away our sin yes

Just like the scapegoat which had the Israelites sins laid upon it and was released unharmed, carrying the Israelites sins away into the wilderness

Leviticus 16:21–22 (LEB) — 21 And Aaron shall place his two hands on the living goat’s head, and he shall confess over it all the Israelites’ iniquities and all their transgressions for all their sins, and he shall put them on the goat’s head, and he shall send it away into the desert with a man standing ready. 22 Thus the goat shall bear on it to a barren region all their guilt, and he shall send the goat away into the desert.








Yes, God was pleased in that Christ was making atonement and healing mankind. There is nothing within the text stating God was pleased because he had an opportunity to pour out his wrath and satisfy his need for punishment by taking it out upon his son.

Who is now making astonishing claims?

You are not debating, not addressing what is put in front of you, ignoring grammar and syntax.

J.

 

[TomL]

Force: God "made" Christ "sin" (ἁμαρτία, hamartia)-but notice that in Greek, ἁμαρτία (hamartia) can mean both sin and sin-offering depending on the context (especially under Septuagintal influence, e.g., Leviticus 4:24 LXX).

Thus, Paul’s phrase is intentionally deep: God "made" (ποιέω) Christ, who was sinless, to be sin or a sin offering for our sake - resonating with the sacrificial logic of Isaiah 53.

But I am arguing Christ was made a sin offering not denying that

PSA, however, requires much more than that

In it are ideas of double imputation, God requiring a need to be propitiated toward man, God being unable to forgive sin instead requiring payment, a need to inflict punishment, and to dole out wrath even if on an innocent party.

 

[TomL]

Who is now making astonishing claims?

You are not debating, not addressing what is put in front of you, ignoring grammar and syntax.

J.

Show where i stated something astonishing

Go back and reread what was wrote

BTW please respond to what was stated below

Yes, God was pleased in that Christ was making atonement and healing mankind. There is nothing within the text stating God was pleased because he had an opportunity to pour out his wrath and satisfy his need for punishment by taking it out upon his son.

 

[TomL]

The cost of your sin was ASTONISHING.

But you want your sin to be "no big deal."

Yeah, that appeals to the pride of man.

Sorry, you are reading your ideas into what I want.

My objection was based upon the effect PSA requires within the trinity and the sinless nature of Christ.

Maybe you should temper your thoughts and words to see what is being stated.

 

[civic]

No one is waking up to your lies.

Jesus paid the price.

ad hominem noted

 

[civic]

Sorry, you are reading your ideas into what I want.

My objection was based upon the effect PSA requires within the trinity and the sinless nature of Christ.

Maybe you should temper your thoughts and words to see what is being stated.

ditto