I found a good online discussion below on Jesus, God and wrath.
The word ‘wrath’ describes God’s retributive justice, which consists of nothing more (and nothing less) than God justly dispensing the consequences that sin deserves.
As J.I. Packer described it: ‘“God’s wrath in the Bible is never the capricious, self-indulgent, irritable, morally ignoble thing that human anger so often is. It is, instead, a right and necessary reaction to objective moral evil”
My main concern is that Ian’s summary of the doctrine of ‘penal substitution’ is inadequate when he writes: that Jesus died in our place, being punished by God for our sins, and so satisfying God’s wrath
Yet, Jesus being ‘punished by God for our sins’ is
not what is meant by penal substitution.
Instead, the doctrine of penal substitution states that ‘God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.’
Now, God giving himself in the person of Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer does not connote disparity of action.
As J.I. Packer puts it:
Propitiation is the work of God Himself. In paganism, man propitiates his gods. In Christianity, God propitiates His own wrath by His own action. God presented Jesus Christ, says Paul, to be a propitiation (Romans 3:21-26). He sent His Son, says John, to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10). It wasn’t man, nor was it Christ, who took the initiative. The Bible insists that it was God Himself who took the initiative in quenching His own wrath.
So, penal substitution does
not mean that Jesus, through the cross, propitiated God’s wrath.
Also, in
Rom. 1, St. Paul repeatedly describes the outworking of wrath as simply being handed over to ‘do as we please’ in the custody of our own desires.
The wrath of God is revealed through God neither directly nor immediately contesting mankind’s assertion of moral independence from God with its eventual loss of our God-wrought pangs of conscience.
Conversely, the grace of God is revealed through the experience in response to the gospel of acknowledging our obligation to God as His creation and our return to Him, through Christ, as our only means of release (redemption) from the consequences of that unfulfilled and violated obligation.
When it is qualified by the apostle in this way, it’s hard to understand why any Christians would have a problem with accepting the validity of declaring that divine wrath was satisfied through the cross.
https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/did-jesus-die-to-satisfy-gods-wrath/
Will Jones
April 17, 2017 at 8:24 pm
Hi David
The real issue here, at least as far as I’m concerned, isn’t negative connotations of the word wrath. I have no problem with the word wrath or the concept of it applied to God. It is very biblical. The problem is the word satisfaction. That indicates a specific way in which it is understood that God’s wrath is taken away from the believer. Satisfaction is not biblical.
The issue also is not the word or concept of propitiation. That just means to take away wrath, and scripture is clear that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice of atonement (or propitiation) which took away God’s wrath from the believer. Again, the issue is the word and concept of satisfaction, which is not found in the Bible, and is used to imply a particular understanding of how God’s wrath is taken away.
That understanding is that what was happening on the cross is that God was pouring out his wrath on Jesus in order to satisfy it, or quench it, or assuage it – the idea being that in order to take it away it must cause the requisite amount of suffering to someone. I take your point about the someone being God himself. But the point still remains that the underlying idea is that in order not to punish human beings God must satisfy or quench his wrath on himself by causing himself the requisite amount of suffering.
You say: ‘Jesus being ‘punished by God for our sins’ is not what is meant by penal substitution. Instead, the doctrine of penal substitution states that ‘God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.’’ But whichever way you cut it that still says: ‘God gave…Jesus Christ, to suffer the…punishment…due to fallen humanity.’ It still says on the cross Jesus (who is God) was being punished by God (i.e. himself) in order to satisfy God’s wrath by enduring the requisite amount of suffering.
Why do some Christians have a problem with this? The most important reason is that it is not biblical. The Bible nowhere says that Jesus was being punished by God on the cross, or receiving a penalty. It nowhere says that he was suffering under God’s wrath. It nowhere says he was satisfying anything, or quenching anything. He was just presented by God as a sacrifice of atonement or a redemption by his blood. In these images there is no suggestion of any punishment or wrath or satisfaction of wrath. You quote Packer saying: ‘The Bible insists that it was God Himself who took the initiative in quenching His own wrath.’ But of course the Bible insists no such thing, because it does not use the word quench in connection with Jesus’ death. These ideas are imposed on the text, they are not actually there in the words themselves.
But why make a fuss about it? Basically because the image of God that it presents, as well as being unbiblical, is just so odd. It supposes the divine wrath on sin to be something which must cause a certain amount of suffering in order to be satisfied or quenched or assuaged – so that God must inflict it on himself if he is to spare us. But there is no biblical reason at all to suppose this to be the case. Sacrifices of atonement are offerings presented in lieu of punishment, not as a transfer of punishment. No one supposes God to be transferring his wrath to some grain and causing it to suffer! When the Bible says Jesus was a sacrifice of atonement it in no way says or implies that he was being punished. He was an offering in lieu of punishment, not a conduit for the punishment or wrath.
So wrath fine. Propitiation fine. But Jesus being punished and satisfying God’s wrath? No. Not biblical. Not warranted. Not necessary. Not right.
Hi David
Given how important this doctrine is said to be, it would be nice if it was mentioned at least once in the Bible! But I do allow that doctrines can be implied. I just don’t think this is.
Your explanation of the significance of blood in sacrifices is very helpful. But your conclusion doesn’t follow from it. There simply is no suggestion in OT sacrifices that the shedding of blood is due to a transfer of wrath or punishment. Ian makes this point in the post and cites a relevant scholar. Sacrifices of atonement and propitiation did not carry connotations of punishment or wrath transfer. The association is in the mind of some readers but not in scripture.
Christ became a curse for us by dying on the cross. He suffered death, which was the curse of Adam, in order to provide in himself the means, through union with him, of being delivered from that curse and living the glorious life of the new creation. This is what Paul is setting out in Romans 5-6. I don’t see what it has to do with wrath transfer – as I’ve pointed out, when Paul mentions wrath in 5:9 he omits to mention that it has been satisfied in Jesus’ death.
The striking the shepherd prophecy isn’t an image of salvation since it is about the sheep scattering. The point Jesus is making in using it is “This very night you will all fall away on account of me”. And note that in the original God then turns his hand against the ‘little ones’ themselves so it’s certainly not punishment or wrath transfer. I can’t pretend to understand its full meaning for Jesus here, but I also can’t see how it helps your case. I feel like you’re clutching at straws if this is the best scripture you have to support wrath satisfaction theory.
Remember: this was not an idea found in the early church or church fathers. It’s a late innovation and unwarranted by scripture. Time to put it to rest!
Hi Phil
Was wondering where you’d got to!
Ian hasn’t participated in this thread so far so you may not get a response to your question, but who knows…
For my part I can re-affirm that I accept those claims.
Perhaps it would help if I set out my chief objections to the idea of punishment transfer and wrath satisfaction.
I am objecting to one thing and one thing only: the idea that in order to spare us punishment God has been obliged, by justice, to punish himself in the person of his Son. I take this to be equivalent to the idea that God has satisfied his wrath or anger by pouring it out on his Son (i.e. on himself). I call this punishment transfer or wrath satisfaction theory, and take the two to be equivalent. This is what I understand to be the penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) theory which defenders are seeking to uphold.
I am not objecting to the idea that humanity is subject to God’s wrath and punishment, and that Jesus had to die in order to shed his blood in a sacrifice of atonement or redemption which would take away God’s wrath from those who are, by faith, found in Christ Jesus. This I take to be incontrovertible. I also would not object to the claim that in doing this Christ provided satisfaction for sin (understood in terms of a satisfactory sin offering) or assuaged God’s wrath (understood in terms of taking it away). I object only to the idea that this was achieved by God punishing Jesus by transferring our punishment to him, and thereby satisfying his wrath by pouring it out on him.
I object to this idea on moral grounds and on scriptural grounds.
On moral grounds I object that it is any satisfaction of justice for God to punish himself in the Person of his Son. I object to the idea that justice can ever be satisfied by the punishment of the innocent, even if willing, or the punishment of oneself in place of the guilty. This is not a model of justice that we would endorse for society, and it is not a concept of justice that we can recognise for God. We would not deem it just to punish willing and innocent people instead of the guilty, and so cannot recognise it as justice when God does it to himself. This is my moral objection: that punishing oneself, or the innocent, in place of the guilty cannot satisfy justice.
By contrast, the idea of a sacrifice of atonement in place of punishment, as used in the Law, is morally unproblematic. There is no moral difficulty in the idea that a suitable sacrifice (or payment, to use redemption imagery) may, particularly when accompanied by repentance and pledge of amendment of life, remove the guilt of an offence and the need for punishment. We use such ideas in our legal system, for example, when we allow sentences to be commuted into fines or replace prosecutions with requirements to attend educational courses. Thus there are no similar moral objections to the idea of a sacrifice of atonement, or sin offering, or redemption.
On scriptural grounds I object that the idea that Jesus is being punished by God or is subject to God’s wrath is not found in the New Testament. The only place where it is stated that a messianic figure will be punished is in the prophecy in Isaiah 53. In the light of that statement not being repeated in the New Testament, I suggest that it is to be understood, like some other aspects of that prophecy, poetically, as a poetic way of describing a sin offering or sacrifice of atonement (terms the NT does use). Just as Jesus did not literally carry our diseases or suffer with infirmity to do so, neither was he literally punished by God; it is a figure of speech, like saying that some hardship was punishing. The reality, presented clearly in the New Testament, and drawing on prophetic imagery from both law and prophets, is that God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement, a redemption by his blood. Thus while he willed him to die, and was the agent of it (he ‘struck’ the shepherd, gave him the ‘cup’), he was not punishing him or pouring out his wrath on him in order to satisfy it. He was putting him forward as a sacrifice of atonement, or sin offering, or redemption.
In terms of why God is pleased to accept Christ’s sacrifice as a sin offering for the sins of the world, I would say that that is up to him, though he has made it clear that a blood sacrifice is required, since blood signifies life. However, I imagine it has a lot to do with the fact that in making this sacrifice Christ also brought about the undoing of the curse under which God has placed humanity, by fulfilling the law and overcoming death, and thereby inaugurating the new creation.
hope this helps !!!