Imputation vs Infusion

[jcrichton]

On Isaiah 53, other translations say “Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise him…” I can not see how God take delight in crushing his own son for the wrong of others. Can you?

John 10. Jesus was obedient to his Father’s will. That’s all. In verse 17, "the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. Contrast with Isaiah 53 where you state that God “delights” in crushing his own son? Can you reconcile these 2 verses? I am sure we are not dealing with a sadist/masochist situation here.

The Father/Son knows the future. There was no reason for the Father to pent/save up his wrath and wait for his son’s incarnation to unleash his anger at him then. In fact it is difficult to pin down where God need to have his wrath appeased. In the Great Flood, God “regretted” making man on earth and grieved. He didn’t need to have his Son suffer then. Just start with a clean slate. No wrath was mentioned.

There were atoning sacrifices in the OT, but I could hardly find one performed just to calm God down. And if the Jews have been dutifully performing their sacrifices at the Temple, what would be a good reason to take it out on your own innocent son centuries later? Why wait for incarnation?

Hi, Eric!

…slowdown; you are confusing terms:

6 You took no pleasure in holocausts or sacrifices for sin

; 7 then I said, just as I was commanded in the scroll of the book, ‘God, here I am! I am coming to obey your will.’ 8 Notice that he says first: You did not want what the Law lays down as the things to be offered, that is: the sacrifices, the oblations, the holocausts and the sacrifices for sin, and you took no pleasure in them; 9 and then he says: Here I am! I am coming to obey your will. He is abolishing the first sort to replace it with the second. (Hebrews 10:6-9)
Just because it was Demanded (Willed by God), it does not mean that God took pleasure in Jesus’ Sacrifice!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[James248]

On Isaiah 53, other translations say “Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise him…” I can not see how God take delight in crushing his own son for the wrong of others. Can you?

John 10. Jesus was obedient to his Father’s will. That’s all. In verse 17, "the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. Contrast with Isaiah 53 where you state that God “delights” in crushing his own son? Can you reconcile these 2 verses? I am sure we are not dealing with a sadist/masochist situation here.

The Father/Son knows the future. There was no reason for the Father to pent/save up his wrath and wait for his son’s incarnation to unleash his anger at him then. In fact it is difficult to pin down where God need to have his wrath appeased. In the Great Flood, God “regretted” making man on earth and grieved. He didn’t need to have his Son suffer then. Just start with a clean slate. No wrath was mentioned.

There were atoning sacrifices in the OT, but I could hardly find one performed just to calm God down. And if the Jews have been dutifully performing their sacrifices at the Temple, what would be a good reason to take it out on your own innocent son centuries later? Why wait for incarnation?

Depends on the reason for it. The reason was that the Son became the atonement for,our sins. So I can see the Father taking pleasure in the fact that His Son’s Sacrifice would justify many.

 

[jcrichton]

Depends on the reason for it. The reason was that the Son became the atonement for,our sins. So I can see the Father taking pleasure in the fact that His Son’s Sacrifice would justify many.

Hi, James!

Yet, I can’t recall a passage that states that God took pleasure in Jesus’ Sacrifice.

…unless I misread the post, it is the poster that translates “will” to delight.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[James248]

Hi, James!

Yet, I can’t recall a passage that states that God took pleasure in Jesus’ Sacrifice.

…unless I misread the post, it is the poster that translates “will” to delight.

Maran atha!

Angel

I’m using Douay Rheims:

Isaiah 53
10 And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.

 

[jcrichton]

I’m using Douay Rheims:

Isaiah 53
10 And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.

Hi, James!

I know we are treading on semantics, but you would say “pleased” may refer to being ‘fulfilled’ or ‘proud’ rather than receiving/taking pleasure in the act?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[James248]

Hi, James!

I know we are treading on semantics, but you would say “pleased” may refer to being ‘fulfilled’ or ‘proud’ rather than receiving/taking pleasure in the act?

Maran atha!

Angel

Yes.

 

[PJM]

In Acts 2, that was the message Peter told the people of Jerusalem. You killed the wrong guy. And God raised him up. If Jesus were truly cursed, God wouldn’t have done that. (Not withstanding that everything was ordained by God.

of killing the completely innocent LAMB of GOD

Perhaps choice of word “cover” wasn’t so brilliant. In RT speak, the “cover” was supposed to disguise the dung to something more pleasant. I never bought that scam. But I put it in for inclusiveness

Good!.

We know the effects of Christ death and resurrection. What wasn’t explained very clearly was HOW the death/resurrection resulted in those effects. For example, we say he takes away the sins of the world. Which act actually did that?

That is a metaphorical expression, NOT intended to be accomplished fact, RATHER a FACT that CAN conditionally be accomplished… John 20:19-23

How did that act accomplished that. [John 20:19-23] We say he redeemed everyone. How was that done?

Redemption of ALL humanity is the first fruit of Christ Passion, Death and Resurrection it did MAKE POSSIBLE BY OPENING THE GATES OF HEAVEN TO WHICH THE RCC HOLDS THE KEY, TO ALL HUMANITY THAT MERIT BY THEIR LIFE CHOICES, HEAVEN AS A ETERNAL REWARD. and what God has made possible for each Soul to know, accept and live…

How did the spilling of his blood actually achieved that? Was there some mechanism that did that? Who got paid for what was owed?

In the OT times sacrifices were offered AND ACCEPTED by God. Blood offering having more merit than say the grain offerings because of the GREATER sacrifice.

In a real sense Christ Blood offering was transitional to a NOW “UNBLOODY OFFERING” as His Sacrifice is not only the “same” as Catholic Holy Communion; but it is literally the IDENTICALLY SAME First Sacrifice made present time and time again. BOTH a Mystery and a Miracle; neither of which can be logically deduced.

Hence the practice of one;s Christian religion is rightfully term "FAITH!"

“But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.”
[1 Corinthians 2:9]

When was the debt incurred?

Sorry But I’m not sure exactly mean here. IF you mean humanity, it was the Original sin of Adam and Eve and it’s CONDITIONAL REMOVAL by Christian Baptism:

John 3:5 & Mt 28:19-20

Is Satan involved in the deal? How so?

Sneaky, sleezy, dupliciously, the “Father of Lies” John.8: 44 "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies … ] has an UNFORCED role in all sin.

I struggled with many questions such as these and I seek enlightenment. No I don’t think the angry Father reflects the Loving Father’s nature. Many attempt to explain the theology but always there are leftover pieces that seemingly does not gel with what was taught about the God we know.

I LOVE you’re questions, PLEASE keep asking them

GBY

Patrick

 

[ericc]

Hi, Eric!

You are using human reason to determine Divine Revelation.

There are not a Loving and angry Fathers… there’s one Father.

God’s Justice Requires a certain Demand. This Demand could not be met by mere animal sacrifice (Old Covenant) nor human sacrifice (no one is Just, not even one); this Demand required the Self-Sacrifice asked of the Son, the Just One. Jesus is the only Lamb that Could Take Away the Sin of the World:

So it is through Jesus’ Sacrifice that all sin is forgiven, razed from existence.

What you fail to see is that it is God Himself that takes our place on the Cross; He takes on our infirmities so that God’s Justice (Wrath) may be quenched/sated:

It is God’s Love of humanity that makes the Sacrificial Lamb possible:

Do you see how it is One Father… God Requires/Demand Justice; yet, His Justice is placated by both His Love and His Mercy! He Provides the means for the prodigal children to Return to Him!

Maran atha!

Angel

Unfortunately your many quotes while splendid do not refute what I have written. Your quotes are not wrong and I agree with each individual chapter/verse wholeheartedly but do not prove which part of my proposition is wrong. Please note that I am also using various verses to support my case.

If you are trying to say that your interpretation is correct while mine is wrong, I welcome your (name removed by moderator)uts to show why it is so. In fact I welcome your take why you think it is morally right for a Loving and Just God to punish His innocent Son for the sins of others where in the Scriptures nothing like that has been plainly stated. I welcome your reasoning why you think Anselm and his supporters are correct while others are wrong. Anselm and his supporters are also using human reasoning to deduce God’s actions. Do you think Anselm’s theory is divinely revealed? Do you think other explanations other than Anselm are not possible? Please note that Anselm’s theory came in quite late too.

 

[James248]

Unfortunately your many quotes while splendid do not refute what I have written. Your quotes are not wrong and I agree with each individual chapter/verse wholeheartedly but do not prove which part of my proposition is wrong. Please note that I am also using various verses to support my case.

If you are trying to say that your interpretation is correct while mine is wrong, I welcome your (name removed by moderator)uts to show why it is so. In fact I welcome your take why you think it is morally right for a Loving and Just God to punish His innocent Son for the sins of others where in the Scriptures nothing like that has been plainly stated. I welcome your reasoning why you think Anselm and his supporters are correct while others are wrong. Anselm and his supporters are also using human reasoning to deduce God’s actions. Do you think Anselm’s theory is divinely revealed? Do you think other explanations other than Anselm are not possible? Please note that Anselm’s theory came in quite late too.

I posted Isaiah 53 for you.

Anselm’s theory can only be understood in light of Romans 5:
6For at just the right time, while we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7It is rare indeed for anyone to die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9Therefore, since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from wrath through Him! 10For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life! 11Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. 13For sin was in the world before the Law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed. He is a pattern of the One to come.

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many! 16Again, the gift is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment that followed one sin brought condemnation, but the gift that followed many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

[James248]

Although Jesus clearly chose to die, it was clearly the Father’s will from eternity.

John 10:
14I am the good shepherd. I know My sheep and My sheep know Me, 15just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father. And I lay down My life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in as well, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock and one shepherd.

17The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life in order to take it up again. 18No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father."

Galatians 4:
3So also, when we were children, we were enslaved under the basic principlesa of the world. 4But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5to redeem those under the Law, that we might receive our adoption as sons.

 

[ericc]

Hi, Eric!

…slowdown; you are confusing terms:

Just because it was Demanded (Willed by God), it does not mean that God took pleasure in Jesus’ Sacrifice!

Maran atha!

Angel

I was using the quote that you gave. I gave an alternative translation to show that it is God’s will that His Son will suffer. There is nothing to suggest that God’s anger is involved and that need to be appeased. It involved God’s will only and Christ obedience to his Father’s Will. If no wrath is mentioned, then satisfaction and appeasement of God’s wrath is purely a human construct.

I am not confused at all. If you can, please provide the relevant indisputable Scriptural source that God’s wrath need to be appeased by His Son’s death. Everyone knows it is God’s will but is it for the alleged reason i.e appease His wrath? Or was that a human construct?

 

[ericc]

Depends on the reason for it. The reason was that the Son became the atonement for,our sins. So I can see the Father taking pleasure in the fact that His Son’s Sacrifice would justify many.

I may be pleased that my son is doing great things. But how can I be pleased punishing him? No father “delights” in punishing their own innocent children for the wrong of others. No father delights in seeing the children being the scapegoat for others and derive delight in punishing them for doing noble deeds. One may hurt to punish your own children for their own good, but one should NOT delight in hurting your child for doing good to others. That’s psycho! I think many are bending backwards to justify this theory.

Just reflect on the parable of the Prodigal Son. Is that the kind of Father that Jesus portrayed? Love was oozing out from every nook and crannies.

 

[James248]

I may be pleased that my son is doing great things. But how can I be pleased punishing him? No father “delights” in punishing their own innocent children for the wrong of others. No father delights in seeing the children being the scapegoat for others and derive delight in punishing them for doing noble deeds. One may hurt to punish your own children for their own good, but one should NOT delight in hurting your child for doing good to others. That’s psycho! I think many are bending backwards to justify this theory.

Just reflect on the parable of the Prodigal Son. Is that the kind of Father that Jesus portrayed? Love was oozing out from every nook and crannies.

That’s what it says in Isaiah 53:10. The reason is provided in the second part of verse 10 and the following verse,

 

[ericc]

That’s what it says in Isaiah 53:10. The reason is provided in the second part of verse 10 and the following verse,

I countered that there were other translations that just say it was God’s will. For example:

NIV - Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,…
ESV - Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him…
ISV - Yet the LORD was willing to crush him,
RSV - CE -Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise him;

So we now have a situation where there is sufficient reason not to insist God’s wrath is at play since none was mentioned. Insisting one translation being more accurate isn’t going to do much good here. Since there is a translation that is more consistent with the image that Jesus painted of his father aka the parable of the prodigal Son, would you rather choose the more violent and unfair image translation over something less violent? The choice is yours. In fact my proposition is not at odds with any Scripture and very consistent with the image that Jesus painted of His Father in the 4 Gospels, i.e. the best Father that anyone could wish for.

1)God’s will that Jesus suffer.
2) Jesus willingly accepted his fate

The main difference that I am proposing is that the suffering done to Jesus was done by Man. You have to ask yourself whether did the Father actively cause the Jews/Caiaphas/Pilate to kill Jesus. I think not. If there is no evidence of God’s involvement in Jesus suffering, why assign the cause to his Father? Foreknowledge is not guilt nor cause. If it is God’s will that bad things do happen, such as wars, Holocaust, genocide etc we do not blame it on God’s wrath automatically. Some do but most do think moral Evil is man-made. Purely choosing a particular translation that supports one view while ignoring inconsistent aspects of it doesn’t seem all too satisfactory to me.

Other than that particular translation of Isaiah 53;10 do you have other verses to support the wrath of God theory?

Am I biased? Sure I am. I think our Father in heaven is not the type of father than delights in punishing his innocent children.

And even if we go by your translation of “delight” to see his Son suffer, there is nothing to suggest that delight appeased his wrath. God’s wrath is just not mentioned AT ALL nor written anywhere else.

 

[James248]

I countered that there were other translations that just say it was God’s will. For example:

NIV - Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,…
ESV - Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him…
ISV - Yet the LORD was willing to crush him,
RSV - CE -Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise him;

So we now have a situation where there is sufficient reason not to insist God’s wrath is at play since none was mentioned. Insisting one translation being more accurate isn’t going to do much good here. Since there is a translation that is more consistent with the image that Jesus painted of his father aka the parable of the prodigal Son, would you rather choose the more violent and unfair image translation over something less violent? The choice is yours. In fact my proposition is not at odds with any Scripture and very consistent with the image that Jesus painted of His Father in the 4 Gospels, i.e. the best Father that anyone could wish for.

1)God’s will that Jesus suffer.
2) Jesus willingly accepted his fate

The main difference that I am proposing is that the suffering done to Jesus was done by Man. You have to ask yourself whether did the Father actively cause the Jews/Caiaphas/Pilate to kill Jesus. I think not. If there is no evidence of God’s involvement in Jesus suffering, why assign the cause to his Father? Foreknowledge is not guilt nor cause. If it is God’s will that bad things do happen, such as wars, Holocaust, genocide etc we do not blame it on God’s wrath automatically. Some do but most do think moral Evil is man-made. Purely choosing a particular translation that supports one view while ignoring inconsistent aspects of it doesn’t seem all too satisfactory to me.

Other than that particular translation of Isaiah 53;10 do you have other verses to support the wrath of God theory?

Am I biased? Sure I am. I think our Father in heaven is not the type of father than delights in punishing his innocent children.

And even if we go by your translation of “delight” to see his Son suffer, there is nothing to suggest that delight appeased his wrath. God’s wrath is just not mentioned AT ALL nor written anywhere else.

5 Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access through faith into this grace, wherein we stand, and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God.
3 And not only so; but we glory also in tribulations, knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience trial; and trial hope;
5 And hope confoundeth not: because the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.
6 For why did Christ, when as yet we were weak, according to the time, die for the ungodly?
7 For scarce for a just man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man some one would dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his charity towards us; because when as yet we were sinners, according to the time,
9 Christ died for us; much more therefore, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from wrath through him.

I’m using Duoay Rheims, which is older than all your translations.

 

[jcrichton]

Unfortunately your many quotes while splendid do not refute what I have written. Your quotes are not wrong and I agree with each individual chapter/verse wholeheartedly but do not prove which part of my proposition is wrong. Please note that I am also using various verses to support my case.

If you are trying to say that your interpretation is correct while mine is wrong, I welcome your (name removed by moderator)uts to show why it is so. In fact I welcome your take why you think it is morally right for a Loving and Just God to punish His innocent Son for the sins of others where in the Scriptures nothing like that has been plainly stated. I welcome your reasoning why you think Anselm and his supporters are correct while others are wrong. Anselm and his supporters are also using human reasoning to deduce God’s actions. Do you think Anselm’s theory is divinely revealed? Do you think other explanations other than Anselm are not possible? Please note that Anselm’s theory came in quite late too.

Hi, Eric!

I’m quite pedestrian… I googled the name and nothing relevant came up (at least on the first couple of paragraphs (not an avid reader) so I have no answer to your query on St. Anselm (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury).

The passages that I did quote was to point out to you that God’s Salvific Plan demanded Divine Justice; that such Justice could not be sated by animal or human sacrifice; that God’s Justice Tempered by His Love and Mercy produced for man the only Sacrifice that would sate His Justice; that the Word, which existed as God and with God from the Beginning, Offered Himself, the human body He Acquired, as man’s substitute.

This is the best I can offer. It is not an interpretation of Scriptures since it was God’s Design to Satisfy His Divine Justice through the One Pure Sacrifice: the Son of man.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I was using the quote that you gave. I gave an alternative translation to show that it is God’s will that His Son will suffer. There is nothing to suggest that God’s anger is involved and that need to be appeased. It involved God’s will only and Christ obedience to his Father’s Will. If no wrath is mentioned, then satisfaction and appeasement of God’s wrath is purely a human construct.

I am not confused at all. If you can, please provide the relevant indisputable Scriptural source that God’s wrath need to be appeased by His Son’s death. Everyone knows it is God’s will but is it for the alleged reason i.e appease His wrath? Or was that a human construct?

Hi, Eric!

When we separate Scriptures from the rest of Scriptures it is difficult to come to the same understanding to which Scriptures are Guiding us:

9 and then he says: Here I am! I am coming to obey your will. He is abolishing the first sort to replace it with the second. 10 And **this will **

was for us to be made holy **by the offering of his body **made once and for all by Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 10:9-10)
Basically you are intimating that there was no need for the Incarnation of the Word because God’s Wrath did not exist; rather, you suggest that an angered and sadistic Father forced the Son to become a Sacrifice that was not needed.

…you are basically Calling Jesus a confused agent whose overbearing Father caused Him to Commit Himself to a death that was not merited nor warranted.

I’ve seen this kind of argument from those who do not want to Believe; it is their argument that a good God would not kill His Son (and, in addition, ‘condemn humanity’).

You ignore all Scriptures when they warn about the wages of sin: death. You also forget Yahweh God’s Warning from the Old Covenant that His Wrath would fall upon sin/sinners.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I may be pleased that my son is doing great things. But how can I be pleased punishing him? No father “delights” in punishing their own innocent children for the wrong of others. No father delights in seeing the children being the scapegoat for others and derive delight in punishing them for doing noble deeds. One may hurt to punish your own children for their own good, but one should NOT delight in hurting your child for doing good to others. That’s psycho! I think many are bending backwards to justify this theory.

Just reflect on the parable of the Prodigal Son. Is that the kind of Father that Jesus portrayed? Love was oozing out from every nook and crannies.

Hi, Eric!

Consider a father whose son turns to drugs; no matter what the family does, the child refuses to give up the drugs… one day the father learns that the son has been in prison and that part of the sentencing is that he get into a mandatory drug treatment program; the father is pleased with the court system for saving his son’s life from the potential perils of the drug vice.

The Father is pleased with the Son because the Son is Saving humanity.

True, from our perspective is hard to understand things of God… yet, Yahweh God has already told us that His Way is not our ways!

Stop sinking your teeth in God’s Manner of Making His Salvific Plan Function; sink your teeth in the Son’s Willingness to take your place on the Cross.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ericc]

I’m using Duoay Rheims, which is older than all your translations.

I think you missed my point entirely. Older translations don’t mean they are better otherwise if the oldest translations are best, there would not be any need for newer ones. My RSV-CE has “ecclesiastical approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” i.e. it is Church approved. Which means the Church does not prohibit alternate translations that she has approved.

The fact is there are various translations that could be equally as valid as another. It depends on the translator preferences. When I researched on the “best” translation of Isaiah, I discovered “best” depends on which meaning the translator prefers out of a universe of various possible meanings. For example ,isaiah53.com/main/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=992&sid=cade17b894cea1d42031940228d07581 quotes the work of John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah.

All I am suggesting is we owe to ourselves not to box ourselves into one particular translation when there are others which do provide better coherence to the image of God as portrayed by Jesus himself. ie a Loving and non-wrathful Father rather than one bent on punishing his Son vicariously out of some human concocted theory of satisfaction/penal sub which reflects the attitudes of the medieval times then.

 

[ericc]

Hi, Eric!

I’m quite pedestrian… I googled the name and nothing relevant came up (at least on the first couple of paragraphs (not an avid reader) so I have no answer to your query on St. Anselm (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury).

The passages that I did quote was to point out to you that God’s Salvific Plan demanded Divine Justice; that such Justice could not be sated by animal or human sacrifice; that God’s Justice Tempered by His Love and Mercy produced for man the only Sacrifice that would sate His Justice; that the Word, which existed as God and with God from the Beginning, Offered Himself, the human body He Acquired, as man’s substitute.

This is the best I can offer. It is not an interpretation of Scriptures since it was God’s Design to Satisfy His Divine Justice through the One Pure Sacrifice: the Son of man.

Maran atha!

Angel

Jesus obedience to his Father’s Will was sufficient, even though both Father and Son both know that adherence to the course of action will result in suffering and death of Jesus at the hands of man. Adam’s disobedience was satisfied by Jesus obedience. Catechism 411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam. Where does Scripture says Jesus death’s was to appease God’s wrath? I think the Father has been unfairly scapegoated for the evils of man.

Our Catechism says these :

597 All sinners were the authors of Christ’s Passion
598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that “sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.”
599 Jesus’ violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God’s plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: "This Jesus (was) delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."This Biblical language does not mean that those who handed him over were merely passive players in a scenario written in advance by God.

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
“He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures”

I know this topic may meet with resistance because this Wrath of God satisfaction theories have been around for long long time and some may wrongly held that this in the only acceptable theory by the Church. There are newer theories non-violence based redemption. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1995_teologia-redenzione_en.html
Peter Abelard and Karl Rahner among others have been mentioned. Unfortunately I do not know enough to confidently discuss them here. My intention is to bring awareness that God’s wrath theory of satisfaction is inconsistent with the image of a loving God AND that there is no necessity to default to a violent punishing God that needs to be satisfied by the death of his son for the sins of others. The other objective is to get others to reflect on the image of the Father that Jesus painted vs the Anselm’s image.

I thank you for the discussion although you sided with the traditionalist view. I was like that too before I signed up for a seminar on Christology last year and I urge traditionalists to have an open mind. I re-challenge Anselm’s theory on what the Bible actually said about appeasing God’s wrath. I have to conclude that satisfaction theory while appealing in a medieval time setting is not strongly supported with actual Scripture. Afraid that I may have missed some important verses supporting Anselm’s theory, I implore those in the know to volunteer these knowledge. So far the Isaiah quote is insufficient and inconclusive.

Meanwhile I am rooting for God’s innocence.