civic
Well-known member
Ditto brother
Where's the wrath??
- Thread starter Joe
- Start date
Johann
Well-known member
Very familiar with this passage @TomL
אֵלִי אֵלִי לָמָה עֲזַבְתָּנִי (Eli, Eli, lama azavtani)--what does it mean?
The word "forsaken" translates to the Hebrew word עֲזַבְתָּנִי (azavtani) in Psalm 22:1. The root of this word is עָזַב (azav), which means "to leave," "to forsake," or "to abandon."
Meaning and Context:
To Abandon: The primary meaning is to leave someone or something behind, often with the implication of neglect or desertion.
Example: Psalm 22:1 - "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Here, "forsaken" indicates a profound sense of abandonment, where the speaker feels utterly deserted by God.
To Leave: It can also mean to leave something or someone temporarily or permanently.
Example: Genesis 2:24 - "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." In this context, the word עָזַב (azav) is used to indicate a departure from one relationship to form a new and different one.
To Desert or Neglect: It can carry a connotation of neglect or failing to support or maintain something.
Example: Isaiah 1:4 - "Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged."
Summary:
In Psalm 22:1, the word "forsaken" (azavtani) expresses a deep sense of abandonment and desertion, highlighting the psalmist's feeling of being left alone in a time of distress. The use of this term in various contexts throughout the Hebrew Bible underscores its strong implications of abandonment, desertion, and neglect.
Now matter how you "spin this" Messiah was forsaken and I thank God for this, how much more can our High Priest intercede in our behalf, knowing our moments of "silence/abandonment" in the face of strong opposition.
This is deep, profound and majestic.
Gill expresses it wonderfully-
why art thou so far from helping me? or from my salvation; from saving and delivering him out of his sorrows and sufferings? not that he despaired of help; he firmly believed he should have it, and accordingly had it: but he expostulates about the deferring of it. He adds,
and from the words of my roaring? which expresses the vehemency of his spirit in crying to God, the exceeding greatness of his sorrows, and his excruciating pains and sufferings: this is what the apostle means by his "strong crying and tears", Heb_5:7; or "the words of my roaring are far from my salvation"; there is a great space or interval between the one and the other, as Gussetius (u) observes.
(u) Comment. Ebr. p. 788.
(Heb.: 22:2-3) In the first division, Psa_22:2, the disconsolate cry of anguish, beginning here in Psa_22:2 with the lamentation over prolonged desertion by God, struggles through to an incipient, trustfully inclined prayer. The question beginning with לָמָּה (instead of לָמָּה before the guttural, and perhaps to make the exclamation more piercing, vid., on Psa_6:5; Psa_10:1) is not an expression of impatience and despair, but of alienation and yearning. The sufferer feels himself rejected of God; the feeling of divine wrath has completely enshrouded him; and still he knows himself to be joined to God in fear and love; his present condition belies the real nature of his relationship to God; and it is just this contradiction that urges him to the plaintive question, which comes up from the lowest depths:
Why hast Thou forsaken me? But in spite of this feeling of desertion by God, the bond of love is not torn asunder; the sufferer calls God אֵלִי (my God), and urged on by the longing desire that God again would grant him to feel this love, he calls Him, אֵלִי אֵלִי. That complaining question: why hast Thou forsaken me? is not without example even elsewhere in Psa_88:15, cf. Isa_49:14. The forsakenness of the Crucified One, however, is unique; and may not be judged by the standard of David or of any other sufferers who thus complain when passing through trial. That which is common to all is here, as there, this, viz., that behind the wrath that is felt, is hidden the love of God, which faith holds fast; and that he who thus complains even on account of it, is, considered in itself, not a subject of wrath, because in the midst of the feeling of wrath he keeps up his communion with God.
The Crucified One is to His latest breath the Holy One of God; and the reconciliation for which He now offers himself is God's own eternal purpose of mercy, which is now being realised in the fulness of times. But inasmuch as He places himself under the judgment of God with the sin of His people and of the whole human race, He cannot be spared from experiencing God's wrath against sinful humanity as though He were himself guilty. And out of the infinite depth of this experience of wrath, which in His case rests on no mere appearance, but the sternest reality,
(Note: Eusebius observes on Psa_22:2 of this Psalm, δικαιοσύνης ὑπάρχων πηγὴ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνέλαβε καὶ εὐλογίας ὢν πέλαγος τὴν ἐπικειμένην ἡμῖν ἐδέξατο κατάραν, and: τὴν ὡρισμένην ἡμῖν παιδείαν ὑπῆλθεν ἑκὼν παιδεία γὰρ ειρήνης ἡμῶν ἐπ ̓ αὐτὸν, ᾗ φησὶν ὁ προφήτης.)
comes the cry of His complaint which penetrates the wrath and reaches to God's love, ἠλὶ ἠλὶ λαμὰ σαβαχθανί, which the evangelists, omitting the additional πρόσχες μοι
(Note: Vid., Jerome's Ep. ad Pammachium de optimo genere interpretandi, where he cries out to his critics, sticklers for tradition, Reddant rationem, cur septuaginta translatores interposuerunt “respice in me!”)
of the lxx, render: Θεέ μου, θεέ μου, ἵνα τί με ἐγκατέλιπες. He does not say עֲזַתְּנִי, but שְׁבַקְתַּנִי, which is the Targum word for the former. He says it in Aramaic, not in order that all may understand it-for such a consideration was far from His mind at such a time-but because the Aramaic was His mother tongue, for the same reason that He called God אַבָּא doG dellac in prayer. His desertion by God, as Psa_22:2 says, consists in God's help and His cry for help being far asunder. שְׁאָגָה, prop. of the roar of the lion (Aq. βρύχημα), is the loud cry extorted by the greatest agony, Psa_38:9; in this instance, however, as דִּבְרֵי shows, it is not an inarticulate cry, but a cry bearing aloft to God the words of prayer. רָחֹוק is not to be taken as an apposition of the subject of עזבתני: far from my help, (from) the words of my crying (Riehm); for דברי שׁאגתי would then also, on its part, in connection with the non-repetition of the מן, be in apposition to מישׁועתי.
But to this it is not adapted on account of its heterogeneousness; hence Hitzig seeks to get over the difficulty by the conjecture מִשַּׁוְעָתִי (“from my cry, from the words of my groaning”). Nor can it be explained, with Olshausen and Hupfeld, by adopting Aben-Ezra's interpretation, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me, far from my help? are the words of my crying.” This violates the structure of the verse, the rhythm, and the custom of the language, and gives to the Psalm a flat and unlyrical commencement. Thus, therefore, רחוק in the primary form, as in Psa_119:155, according to Ges. §146, 4, will by the predicate to דברי and placed before it: far from my salvation, i.e., far from my being rescued, are the words of my cry; there is a great gulf between the two, inasmuch as God does not answer him though he cries unceasingly.
Read Keil & Delitzsch-a must read as well as Lange on this passage, you have the time since you are roaming from thread to thread.
Last edited:
@Johann
Brothers,
Do you think our Lord did not know His Father was not going to intervene in rescuing Him from the cross? Why would He ask such a question if He already knew? And didn't He already know since He Himself is God? Is God divided? And didn't our Lord say, "Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour"?
It is no mystery for God in the flesh, the Son of Man, that He was going to the cross and His Father would not intervene. Isn't the truth that it was God's determined decision according to His foreknowledge to hand His Son over to the unbelieving Jews who would use the Romans to kill Him? We know Jesus knew this.
Psalms 22 is about king David going through a time of trouble at the hands of those who despised him. God did not intervene and allowed him to go through the trouble. David's trouble was the means for him to pen under the Holy Spirit the Messianic prophecies of our Lord's sufferings on the cross and the glories afterwards.
The significance of Psalms 22 is Messianic. The purposed sufferings of our Lord, His appeal for God to save Him-not from the cross but the grave, His resurrection in verse 24 that God did not hide His face from Him when He cried to Him to save Him, the result of His sufferings and resurrection would satisfy the meek, that they would praise the LORD and live forever, that all the ends of the earth-the Gentile nations shall turn to the LORD and worship before Him, that His posterity-born again believers will serve Him, they will tell of the Lord to the next generation and declare His righteousness to a people yet to be born.
And now you know why our Lord cried out with a loud voice on the cross the opening question to Psalms 22. What a marvelous testimony when He told the Jews to believe in Him to be saved, and when asking Him for a sign He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up". Psalms 22 is yet another set of prophecies and promises of God that are clearly understood when removing the glasses of PSA.
As a note: Three days later He arose and showed Himself to hundreds. We have the NT as a result declaring His righteousness to people yet born. We praise the Lord continually and will also live forever. All of the Gentile nations have and are still hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And we most certainly serve Him.
Crying out in a loud voice the opening of Psalm 22 that is all about what was happening at that moment in time is a testimony and sign from God to that generation and all the rest.
What it is not is the vain imaginations of men who say our Lord was a grotesque mass of sin that God turned His face from. This is a very popular error within reformed and PSA adhering assemblies.
God Bless
Last edited:
atpollard
Well-known member
With all that biblical word defining, it is a curious omission that the Hebrew/Greek word for “WRATH” was never defined. Instead you proved that God did all the things “I” (who speaks for no one else) never questioned, and avoided the one “devil in the details” that I can find no Biblical support for.
- Neither God nor the priest is ever described as HATING the sin offering (except when offered improperly).
- I cannot locate the verse that says the Father HATED the Son.
- The essence of WRATH is a “strong vengeful anger” … which in scripture always seems directed against God’s enemies and stored up for THEM (His enemies) to be delivered on the “Day of Wrath”.
- Wrath (strong vengeful anger) is never how Christ’s offering is described.
- Enemy is never the word used to describe the relationship of the Son to the Father.
civic
Well-known member
Amen
Poor handling. Staying on the first verse and ignoring the rest of the psalm is not how one comes to understand it
What do you do with the psalmist's conclusion
24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
Christ may have felt forsaken but as psalm 22 shows God had not forsaken him
What do you do with this verse
2 Corinthians 5:19 (KJV 1900) — 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
According to this verse God was in Christ acting to make atonement
He could not be doing that had he forsaken Christ
Have you considered the nature of the godhead? The unity, the oneness that exists between father, son and Holy Ghost?
The idea god could forsake God fractures the unity that exists within the trinity and creates a tritheistic view of the godhead
Belousek, in Atonement, Justice, and Peace writes:
Our doubt is confirmed when considering the penal substitution interpretation of Jesus’ utterance from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). Stott maintains that this is “a cry of real dereliction” and, hence, that in Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross “an actual and dreadful separation took place between the Father and the Son.” This separation between Father and Son happens, penal substitution says, because at the cross Jesus both bears the sins of all humanity and suffers the penalty for those sins in place of humanity, both of which are necessary in order for Jesus to satisfy divine retribution as the universal penal substitute. The Father, whose justice requires this punishment for sin but whose holiness can have nothing to do with sin, must separate himself from the sin the Son bears and so must separate himself from—and, hence, “turn his back” on or “hide his face” from—the sin-bearing Son.
To speak of “an actual and dreadful separation” between God the Father and God the Son suggests, again, the picture of a Trinity comprising not only distinct but separable persons, such that Father and Son can each exist and act apart from the other. In this situation, the Son’s express desire in his darkest hour is for his Father’s presence, for which he cries out. But the Father refuses his Son’s request and denies his presence to his Son in his hour of peril for the sake of the Father’s own integrity. The will of the Son and the will of the Father, unified in the garden and the trial, now seem to have diverged at the cross. According to penal substitution, therefore, the cross separates Father and Son, such that accomplishing the work of salvation alienates the Son from the Father. Stott, recognizing the tension between this interpretation and Trinitarian theology, writes later of the “conviction that Father and Son cannot be separated, especially when we are thinking about the atonement.…” Yet, according to Stott, that is precisely what the cross does, separates and alienates Father and Son. Where Stott sees one statement—“an actual and dreadful separation … between the Father and the Son”—being “balanced” by another statement—“Father and Son cannot be separated”—I see incoherence.30
Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 301–302.
Last edited:
One must understand how to handle these Old Testament references. They did not have verse numbering back in those days so they would appeal to that which was familiar so that t may be read in context.
Johann
Well-known member
Just to clarify @atpollard I never advocated that God "poured out His wrath" upon the Son and I concur re your points-however-I still hold to PSA.
A. Noun.
orge (G3709), originally any "natural impulse, or desire, or disposition," came to signify "anger," as the strongest of all passions. It is used of the wrath of man, Eph_4:31; Col_3:8; 1Ti_2:8; Jas_1:19-20; the displeasure of human governments, Rom_13:4-5; the sufferings of the Jews at the hands of the Gentiles, Luk_21:23; the terrors of the Law, Rom_4:15; "the anger" of the Lord Jesus, Mar_3:5; God's "anger" with Israel in the wilderness, in a quotation from the OT, Heb_3:11; Heb_4:3; God's present "anger" with the Jews nationally, Rom_9:22; 1Th_2:16; His present "anger" with those who disobey the Lord Jesus in His gospel, Joh_3:36; God's purposes in judgment, Mat_3:7; Luk_3:7; Rom_1:18; Rom_2:5, Rom_2:8; Rom_3:5; Rom_5:9; Rom_12:19; Eph_2:3; Eph_5:6; Col_3:6; 1Th_1:10; 1Th_5:9. See INDIGNATION, VENGEANCE, WRATH.
Notes: (1) Thumos, "wrath" (not translated "anger"), is to be distinguished from orge, in this respect, that thumos indicates a more agitated condition of the feelings, an outburst of wrath from inward indignation, while orge suggests a more settled or abiding condition of mind, frequently with a view to taking revenge. Orge is less sudden in its rise than thumos, but more lasting in its nature. Thumos expresses more the inward feeling, orge the more active emotion. Thumos may issue in revenge, though it does not necessarily include it. It is characteristic that it quickly blazes up and quickly subsides, though that is not necessarily implied in each case.
(2) Parorgismos, a strengthened form of orge, and used in Eph_4:26, RV margin, "provocation," points especially to that which provokes the wrath, and suggests a less continued state than No. (1). "The first keenness of the sense of provocation must not be cherished, though righteous resentment may remain" (Westcott). The preceding verb, orgizo, in this verse implies a just occasion for the feeling. This is confirmed by the fact that it is a quotation from Psa_4:4 (Sept.), where the Hebrew word signifies to quiver with strong emotion.
Thumos is found eighteen times in the NT, ten of which are in the Apocalypse, in seven of which the reference is to the wrath of God; so in Rom_2:8, RV, "wrath (thumos) and indignation" (orge); the order in the KJV is inaccurate. Everywhere else the word thumos is used in a bad sense. In Gal_5:20, it follows the word "jealousies," which when smoldering in the heart break out in wrath. Thumos and orge are coupled in two places in the Apocalypse, Rev_16:19, "the fierceness (thumos) of His wrath" (orge); and Rev_19:15, "the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God." see WROTH (be).
(3) Aganaktesis originally signified "physical pain or irritation" (probably from agan, "very much," and achomai, "to grieve"), hence, "annoyance, vexation," and is used in 2Co_7:11, "indignation."
B. Verbs.
1. orgizo (G3710), "to provoke, to arouse to anger," is used in the middle voice in the eight places where it is found, and signifies "to be angry, wroth." It is said of individuals, in Mat_5:22; Mat_18:34; Mat_22:7; Luk_14:21; Luk_15:28, and Eph_4:26 (where a possible meaning is "be ye angry with yourselves"); of nations, Rev_11:18; of Satan as the Dragon, Rev_12:17 see WRATH.
2. parorgizo (G3949) is "to arouse to wrath, provoke" (para, used intensively, and No. 1); Rom_10:19, "will I anger"; Eph_6:4, "provoke to wrath." see PROVOKE.
3. cholao (G5520), connected with chole, "gall, bile," which became used metaphorically to signify bitter anger, means "to be enraged," Joh_7:23, "wroth," RV, in the Lord's remonstrance with the Jews on account of their indignation at His having made a man whole on the Sabbath Day.
Notes: (1) Thumomacheo (from thumos, "wrath," machomai, "to fight") originally denoted to fight with great animosity, and hence came to mean "to be very angry, to be exasperated," Act_12:20, of the anger of Herod, "was highly displeased.
(2) Thumoo, the corresponding verb, signifies "to provoke to anger," but in the passive voice "to be wroth," as in Mat_2:16, of the wrath of Herod, "was exceeding wroth.
(3) Aganakteo, see A, Note (3), is rendered in various ways in the seven places where it is used; "moved with indignation," Mat_20:24 and Mat_21:15, RV (KJV, "sore displeased"); "had indignation," Mat_26:8; Mar_14:4. In Mar_10:14 the RV has "was moved with indignation" (KJV, "was much displeased"), said of the Lord Jesus. The same renderings are given in Mar_10:41. In Luk_13:14 (KJV, "with indignation"), the RV rightly puts "being moved with indignation." These words more particularly point to the cause of the vexation. See DISPLEASE, INDIGNATION.
(4) In Col_3:21, erethizo signifies "to provoke." The RV correctly omits "to anger."
C. Adjective.
orgilos (G3711), "angry, prone to anger, irascible" (see B, Nos. 1, 2), is rendered "soon angry" in Tit_1:7.
Vine NT.
Just to add-who is right in their doctrines? Arminians? Baptist-Gill?
Thank you for responding.
Johann.
civic
Well-known member
Yes especially when the NT quotes them or teaches on the doctrine.
If you do not advocate for God pouring his wrath out on Christ you do not hold to PSA
Johann
Well-known member
Don't tell me what I should-or should not believe since I am not being edified by you at all-not being facetious.
civic
Well-known member
Exactly
civic
Well-known member
It’s like saying I’m a Calvinist and don’t believe in tulip or I’m an Arminian and I don’t believe in free will or a catholic and dont believe in the pope. It’s an oxymoron
You simply do not understand what PSA entails
PSA includes God's wrath upon Christ
If you do not hold to that, you are not holding to PSA
Exactly
Behold
Well-known member
Jesus referred to God's Wrath as "let this Cup pass from me"..
Isaiah 53 said "it pleased the LORD (God) to bruise Jesus".
Isaiah then says...>"He was wounded for our Transgressions".. and "by Jesus's Stripes we were healed".
So, the Stripes, the Wounded, and "the Cup" are : The Cross of Christ, where God's judgement against the Sin of mankind was "poured out", on Jesus, for us all.
This is..>"God hath made Jesus to be SIN for us.... "
Issiah 53 explains it as.. "God has laid on JESUS, the iniquity of us all".
This is known as "Jesus is our Sin Bearer"., as Jesus bore God's Wrath upon Himself for OUR Sin.
-
Johann
Well-known member
Why not reject the "other theories" as well? Since these is also a very "early/late" inventions?
Theories of atonement in Christian theology explore how Jesus Christ's death and resurrection reconcile humanity with God. While Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is a prominent theory, there are several others with roots in early Christian writings. Here are some of the earliest writings and proponents of these other theories:
Christus Victor (Christ the Victor):
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202): His work "Against Heresies" outlines the idea that Christ's death was a victory over the powers of sin and death. Irenaeus emphasized the concept of recapitulation, where Christ, as the new Adam, succeeded where the first Adam failed.
Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395): In his writings, Gregory discusses the notion of Christ defeating death and Satan through His resurrection.
Ransom Theory:
Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253): Origen articulated the idea that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to Satan to free humanity from bondage to sin and death.
Gregory of Nyssa also contributed to this theory, suggesting that Christ’s humanity was the bait to trap Satan.
Moral Influence Theory:
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215): In works like "The Instructor," Clement emphasized that Christ's life and death serve as a moral example to humanity, inspiring us to live righteously.
Peter Abelard (1079–1142): Though much later than the early Church Fathers, Abelard’s "Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans" popularized this theory in the medieval period, suggesting that Christ's sacrifice was meant to demonstrate God’s love and thus lead humans to repentance.
Satisfaction Theory:
Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109): His seminal work "Cur Deus Homo" (Why God Became Man) proposed that Christ’s death was necessary to satisfy the honor of God, which had been offended by human sin. This theory laid the groundwork for the later development of Penal
Substitutionary Atonement.
These early writings provide a diverse foundation for understanding the various ways Christians have interpreted the significance of Christ’s atoning work. Each theory offers a different perspective on how Christ's death and resurrection restore the relationship between God and humanity.
***********************************************************************************************************************************************
The New Testament (1st century AD):
The Gospels, particularly the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), emphasize Jesus' role in bringing the Kingdom of God, His sacrificial death, and resurrection. John’s Gospel presents Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).
Pauline Epistles: Paul’s letters (written between AD 50-60) contain some of the earliest reflections on the meaning of Jesus' death. In particular, passages like Romans 3:25-26 and 1 Corinthians 15:3 reflect early understandings of Jesus' death as a sacrificial act for the forgiveness of sins, resonating with both Christus Victor and Substitutionary themes.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107):
In his letters, Ignatius frequently discusses the significance of Jesus' death and resurrection. In his "Letter to the Ephesians," Ignatius emphasizes the victory of Christ over the powers of evil and death, aligning with Christus Victor themes.
He also stresses the importance of the Eucharist, seeing it as a means of participating in the life and victory of Jesus.
The Didache (1st century):
The Didache, an early Christian manual for community life and worship, discusses the Eucharist and baptism but also reflects on the atoning significance of Jesus' death. While not as developed as later theories, it lays foundational ideas about sacrificial atonement.
1 Clement (late 1st century):
In this letter, traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome, there are references to the sacrificial death of Jesus. Clement uses the language of sacrifice and righteousness, indicating an early understanding of Jesus’ death as a means of reconciliation with God.
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165):
In his "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho," Justin Martyr elaborates on the role of Christ's death as a ransom and a victory over evil powers. He also discusses the typological fulfillment of Old Testament sacrifices in Jesus’ crucifixion.
The Epistle to Diognetus (2nd century):
This early Christian apologetic text explains the significance of Jesus' death as an act of divine love and mercy, emphasizing the transformative impact on believers. It reflects early ideas related to the Moral Influence Theory.
These early Christian texts and writers illustrate a range of atonement concepts, including sacrificial, victory, and moral influence themes. They provide a rich and diverse foundation for the later, more formalized atonement theories developed by the Church Fathers and medieval theologians.
So pray tell me @TomL-which one holds water?
Last edited:
The cup was going to the cross
It says nothing about god's wrath being poured out on Christ
Yes because by it God was restoring and healing man
and not because God obtained the opportunity to pour out wrath
Yes The cross was about healing man, not giving God an opportunity to exhaust his wrath
The cross was not about satisfying a need in God so that the cross was acting on God
God was in fact doing the acting, making atonement for man through the cross of Christ
2 Corinthians 5:19 (KJV 1900) — 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
John 3:16 (KJV 1900) — 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
nor was God being reconciled to man, rather he was reconciling man to himself as 2Cor 5:19 above notes
Jesus was not guilty of all the sins of the world
So there is no justification for the punishment of Christ
That should be understood as a sin offering
it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the חטאה chattaah and חטאת chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word by ἁμαρτια in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own1
1 Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes (vol. 6, New Edition.; Bellingham, WA: Faithlife Corporation, 2014), 338–339.
compare with
Isaiah 53:10 (KJV 1900) — 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, He shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Behold
Well-known member
The Cup was being "poured out"..
That is the actual Wrath, that Jesus faced..
That's the Cross.
Similar threads
