Jesus taking on all of God's wrath & punishment

[MT1926]

I heard and evangelical thank Jesus the other day for taking on all of God’s wrath and punishment on the cross at Calvary, so we didn’t have to. I was a little puzzled by his words, because this seems to go along with the objection I’ve heard quite often from Atheists, who characterize God as a bloodthirsty tyrant who killed his own son (Jesus) on the cross. They have the mindset that Jesus was sacrificed against his will in order to fulfill the requirements of his sadistic father.

I was puzzled thinking to myself Jesus wasn’t punished by God for our sins he freely laid down his life for us?

I have been searching, with no luck, for the past 4 days for a Bible basis for this line of thinking. I didn’t want to go into this blindly with him or come off as confronting.

I was hoping some of my non-Catholic brothers and sisters on this site might be able to help me out and pass along some scripture where the wrath of God punishing Jesus might come from.

Or

Some of my Catholic brothers and sisters could chime in on why it isn’t Biblical.

Thanks for your time

 

[grannymh]

I heard and evangelical thank Jesus the other day for taking on all of God’s wrath and punishment on the cross at Calvary, so we didn’t have to. I was a little puzzled by his words, because this seems to go along with the objection I’ve heard quite often from Atheists, who characterize God as a bloodthirsty tyrant who killed his own son (Jesus) on the cross. They have the mindset that Jesus was sacrificed against his will in order to fulfill the requirements of his sadistic father.

I was puzzled thinking to myself Jesus wasn’t punished by God for our sins he freely laid down his life for us?

I have been searching, with no luck, for the past 4 days for a Bible basis for this line of thinking. I didn’t want to go into this blindly with him or come off as confronting.

I was hoping some of my non-Catholic brothers and sisters on this site might be able to help me out and pass along some scripture where the wrath of God punishing Jesus might come from.

Or

Some of my Catholic brothers and sisters could chime in on why it isn’t Biblical.

Thanks for your time

A basic understanding of the necessity of a Divine Jesus Christ can be found in the first three chapters of Genesis. One needs to start with the original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity aka the friendship relationship between God the creator and Adam the creature. Obviously, it helps to understand the Catholic teachings which flow from these three chapters.

 

[ltwin]

I heard and evangelical thank Jesus the other day for taking on all of God’s wrath and punishment on the cross at Calvary, so we didn’t have to.

What you’re talking about is the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. This is a standard evangelical theological position defined by evangelical Anglican theologian J. I. Packer as:

God remits our sins and accepts our persons into favour not because of any amends we have attempted, but because the penalty which was our due was diverted on to Christ. The notion which the phrase ‘penal substitution’ expresses is that Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love that was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory. To affirm penal substitution is to say that believers are in debt to Christ specifically for this, and that this is the mainspring of all their joy, peace and praise both now and for eternity.

Brandon Smith, writing for The Gospel Coalition, explains it this way:

As he hung on the cross, Jesus cried out the epic, mysterious words, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). What did He mean by this? How could the eternal Son be in any way separated from the eternal Father? Why does it matter?

These questions have perplexed Christians for centuries, but the answer is crucial: the sinless Jesus had God’s wrath toward our sins thrust upon His dying shoulders, temporarily separating Him from the eternal affection and protection of His own Father. He was abandoned in order to experience and absorb God’s anger.

This is called penal substitution: Jesus was punished (penalized) in our place (substitution) so that we could be forgiven.

Sin is so offensive to God that only the blood of a spotless sacrifice will wipe it clean (Isa. 53:5-6; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 10:11-12). So in the greatest mission trip of all time, God the Son entered human history to die a gruesome death to “become a curse for us” (Gal 3:13), even though he was anything but a curse, because we deserve wrath for the sins we commit (Rom. 1:18, 6:23; Eph. 2:3). Jesus Himself said that He came to give His life as “a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). Paul echoed this, saying that Jesus came “to be sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus paid it all on the cross, once and for all (Heb. 10:12). Because of this, when God looks at us, he no longer sees a sinner destined for wrath; he sees His Son nailed to the cross, shedding His own blood in our place. He died so that we may truly live, free from the shackles of sin and death.

Because “all have sinned”, God’s justice demanded that all people receive the punishment for sin–death. Jesus, as both God and man was without sin and was uniquely qualified to become our substitute. God imputed our sin to Jesus, and imputed the righteousness of Jesus to us. This is the basis of our salvation. When God looks at us, he does not see our sin (which was washed away in the blood of Christ), but he sees only the righteousness of Christ and declares us righteous.

Most, but not all, evangelical Protestants subscribe to the penal substitution theory. There are some Wesleyan-Arminians who don’t, preferring what’s called the “governmental theory of the atonement.”

I was a little puzzled by his words, because this seems to go along with the objection I’ve heard quite often from Atheists, who characterize God as a bloodthirsty tyrant who killed his own son (Jesus) on the cross. They have the mindset that Jesus was sacrificed against his will in order to fulfill the requirements of his sadistic father.

I was puzzled thinking to myself Jesus wasn’t punished by God for our sins he freely laid down his life for us?

Jesus did freely lay down his life. He was not forced to do anything, but did it willingly out of love. However, according to the penal substitution view, Jesus did voluntarily take our punishment on himself. God the Father satisfied his justice by punishing Jesus instead of you and me. In return, we get to be forgiven and become restored to divine fellowship through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I have been searching, with no luck, for the past 4 days for a Bible basis for this line of thinking. I didn’t want to go into this blindly with him or come off as confronting.

I was hoping some of my non-Catholic brothers and sisters on this site might be able to help me out and pass along some scripture where the wrath of God punishing Jesus might come from.

Here are some verses often used as support:

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree’” (Galations 3:13).

“God presented [Jesus] as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:25-26).

'We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6).

 

[grannymh]

What you’re talking about is the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. This is a standard evangelical theological position defined by evangelical Anglican theologian J. I. Packer as:
God remits our sins and accepts our persons into favour not because of any amends we have attempted, but because the penalty which was our due was diverted on to Christ. The notion which the phrase ‘penal substitution’ expresses is that Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love that was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory. To affirm penal substitution is to say that believers are in debt to Christ specifically for this, and that this is the mainspring of all their joy, peace and praise both now and for eternity.
Brandon Smith, writing for The Gospel Coalition, explains it this way:
As he hung on the cross, Jesus cried out the epic, mysterious words, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). What did He mean by this? How could the eternal Son be in any way separated from the eternal Father? Why does it matter?

These questions have perplexed Christians for centuries, but the answer is crucial: the sinless Jesus had God’s wrath toward our sins thrust upon His dying shoulders, temporarily separating Him from the eternal affection and protection of His own Father. He was abandoned in order to experience and absorb God’s anger.

This is called penal substitution: Jesus was punished (penalized) in our place (substitution) so that we could be forgiven.

Sin is so offensive to God that only the blood of a spotless sacrifice will wipe it clean (Isa. 53:5-6; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 10:11-12). So in the greatest mission trip of all time, God the Son entered human history to die a gruesome death to “become a curse for us” (Gal 3:13), even though he was anything but a curse, because we deserve wrath for the sins we commit (Rom. 1:18, 6:23; Eph. 2:3). Jesus Himself said that He came to give His life as “a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). Paul echoed this, saying that Jesus came “to be sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus paid it all on the cross, once and for all (Heb. 10:12). Because of this, when God looks at us, he no longer sees a sinner destined for wrath; he sees His Son nailed to the cross, shedding His own blood in our place. He died so that we may truly live, free from the shackles of sin and death.
Because “all have sinned”, God’s justice demanded that all people receive the punishment for sin–death. Jesus, as both God and man was without sin and was uniquely qualified to become our substitute. God imputed our sin to Jesus, and imputed the righteousness of Jesus to us. This is the basis of our salvation. When God looks at us, he does not see our sin (which was washed away in the blood of Christ), but he sees only the righteousness of Christ and declares us righteous.

Most, but not all, evangelical Protestants subscribe to the penal substitution theory. There are some Wesleyan-Arminians who don’t, preferring what’s called the “governmental theory of the atonement.”

Jesus did freely lay down his life. He was not forced to do anything, but did it willingly out of love. However, according to the penal substitution view, Jesus did voluntarily take our punishment on himself. God the Father satisfied his justice by punishing Jesus instead of you and me. In return, we get to be forgiven and become restored to divine fellowship through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Here are some verses often used as support:

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree’” (Galations 3:13).

“God presented [Jesus] as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:25-26).

'We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6).

Thank you for the information.

As a Catholic student in grade school, I learned that the basic fundamental reason for Jesus hanging bloody on His freely chosen cross was to repair the original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity. Unfortunately, this basic reasoning is often overlooked as both historic and modern objections to the Catholic teachings on Original Sin appeared. Currently, there is this thread in the Sacred Scripture Forum which goes back to the dawn of human history. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1005088

My apology, but I need some time to precisely respond to the above.

 

[MT1926]

What you’re talking about is the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement.

Thanks for the terminology, putting a name to it gives me something to research.

God remits our sins and accepts our persons into favour not because of any amends we have attempted, but because the penalty which was our due was diverted on to Christ.
​

I was good with this until I came to the word diverted on to Christ. The wording just doesn’t sound right. It makes it sound like Christ had no choice.

The notion which the phrase ‘penal substitution’ expresses is that Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love that was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory.

Just not to sure about that word destructive. I think Perfect Divine Judgement is a better expression. Also, how can you “exhaust” an eternal being? Wouldn’t Jesus sacrifice on the cross need to be an eternal sacrifice for an eternal judgement?

Brandon Smith, writing for The Gospel Coalition, explains it this way:

As he hung on the cross, Jesus cried out the epic, mysterious words, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). What did He mean by this? How could the eternal Son be in any way separated from the eternal Father? Why does it matter?
​

These words are the first line of Psalm 22 which prophesied the Passion of our Lord. If we read the entire Psalm we come to the realization that Jesus did not think that his Father had given up on him but that he showed confidence that the Father wouldn’t abandon him.

These questions have perplexed Christians for centuries, but the answer is crucial: the sinless Jesus had God’s wrath toward our sins thrust upon His dying shoulders, temporarily separating Him from the eternal affection and protection of His own Father. He was abandoned in order to experience and absorb God’s anger.

This is called penal substitution: Jesus was punished (penalized) in our place (substitution) so that we could be forgiven.

Jesus and the Father are one, how can they in anyway be separated?

Thanks, but still don’t understand. I think the “God’s anger” and “Jesus being punished” is taking it a little to far. I’m OK with saying Jesus paid the price due to God for the eternal punishment due for our sins. But to say Jesus was “punished” is to make it seem like he became “guilty” of our sins. Don’t see how one person can be guilty of something they didn’t do. As a father I can pay the money due for something my son messed up, but I can’t become guilty (substituted) for his sin.

Because of this, when God looks at us, he no longer sees a sinner destined for wrath; he sees His Son nailed to the cross, shedding His own blood in our place. He died so that we may truly live, free from the shackles of sin and death.
Because “all have sinned”, God’s justice demanded that all people receive the punishment for sin–death. Jesus, as both God and man was without sin and was uniquely qualified to become our substitute. God imputed our sin to Jesus, and imputed the righteousness of Jesus to us. This is the basis of our salvation. When God looks at us, he does not see our sin (which was washed away in the blood of Christ), but he sees only the righteousness of Christ and declares us righteous.

I’ve heard this before and I just can’t see it. To say an all knowing, omnipresent God no longer sees us but sees his son just seems to put a limitation on God. I think he sees both.

Jesus did freely lay down his life. He was not forced to do anything, but did it willingly out of love. However, according to the penal substitution view, Jesus did voluntarily take our punishment on himself. God the Father satisfied his justice by punishing Jesus instead of you and me. In return, we get to be forgiven and become restored to divine fellowship through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for all your help, I still have a lot of research to do. The whole Jesus was our substitute and God was satisfied by taking his anger out on Christ and punishing him instead just doesn’t make sense. Just from a logical standpoint if the punishment for sin is death (Hell) wouldn’t Christ need to be in Hell to satisfy God’s wrath?​

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by MT1926:

Or

Some of my Catholic brothers and sisters could chime in on why it isn’t Biblical.

The Penal Substitution view of atonement basically says Jesus takes my sins and receives the punishment for my sins. In return I receive his righteousness and am thereby justified in the eyes of God. When the Father looks at me, he doesn’t see my sins, he only sees the righteousness of Jesus. My personal view of that is that that is a bigger lie than the serpent in the Garden of Eden. It makes God the author of a lie. “You are not righteous, but I’m going to declare that you are. Jesus is not guilty, but I’m going to declare that he is and punish him.” In my opinion, the logical questions to ask in regards to penal substitution are: “If Jesus took my punishment, then why will I still die physical death which is a physical punishment of sin?” And, “If Jesus took my punishment, then shouldn’t he be in hell for all eternity due to the spiritual punishment from the sins of all mankind?” Since we still die and Jesus is not in hell, the conclusion must be that Jesus did not take my punishment for sin.

Penal substitution makes God to be a liar and a false judge and I don’t see any way around that conclusion.

 

[MT1926]

Jesus is not guilty, but I’m going to declare that he is and punish him.” In my opinion, the logical questions to ask in regards to penal substitution are: “If Jesus took my punishment, then why will I still die physical death which is a physical punishment of sin?” And, “If Jesus took my punishment, then shouldn’t he be in hell for all eternity due to the spiritual punishment from the sins of all mankind?” Since we still die and Jesus is not in hell, the conclusion must be that Jesus did not take my punishment for sin.

Thanks for the response. That’s what seemed strange to me. How could Jesus be punished for something I did. I believe he paid the price for our sins but just can’t see, from scriptural, how he took on our guilt as well.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for the response. That’s what seemed strange to me. How could Jesus be punished for something I did. I believe he paid the price for our sins but just can’t see, from scriptural, how he took on our guilt as well.

The basic truth is that Jesus stepped into the sandals of Adam. That is the basic meaning of the Incarnation. Jesus assumed human nature and therefore, being Divine, only He could restore the original relationship initiated by the Divine Creator.

1Corinthians 15: 54-55

“Death is swallowed up in victory.
Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”%between%

 

[adamhovey1988]

Call Dr. David Anders at 2 pm Eastern time on ewtn, he is really good at explaining and knocking down this theology (Show is Called to Communion)

 

[Hatikvah]

Being more inclined towards Luther anyhow (though I am not a Lutheran), I found the satisfaction theory of the atonement much more fulfilling, with the Christus Victor theory being appealing as well. Penal substitution has been criticized as “cosmic child abuse,” in some sense, and it is an interesting critique.

However, nothing can fully capture the love of God the Father and God the Son both between Themselves and for human men, who are sinners, in that eternity that Christ was painfully nailed to the cross. Not one theory can capture the event in which God and man were reconciled, God being made a man that we may have eternal life.

This event is the apex of God’s plan for humanity. God’s love was, and still is, shown through the event.

 

[PolliceVerso]

The Penal Substitution view of atonement basically says Jesus takes my sins and receives the punishment for my sins. In return I receive his righteousness and am thereby justified in the eyes of God. When the Father looks at me, he doesn’t see my sins, he only sees the righteousness of Jesus. My personal view of that is that that is a bigger lie than the serpent in the Garden of Eden. It makes God the author of a lie. “You are not righteous, but I’m going to declare that you are. Jesus is not guilty, but I’m going to declare that he is and punish him.” In my opinion, the logical questions to ask in regards to penal substitution are: “If Jesus took my punishment, then why will I still die physical death which is a physical punishment of sin?” And, “If Jesus took my punishment, then shouldn’t he be in hell for all eternity due to the spiritual punishment from the sins of all mankind?” Since we still die and Jesus is not in hell, the conclusion must be that Jesus did not take my punishment for sin.

Penal substitution makes God to be a liar and a false judge and I don’t see any way around that conclusion.

The Catholic Catechism says this:

615 "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”.444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445

This is the very essence of the Gospel: that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life that we as Christians should live, and died the death that we deserve to die because of our sin. The Apostles’ Creed states that Jesus “descended into hell,” and St. Paul explains the importance of this in Romans 5:17-18:

For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through one man [Adam], much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

In other words, Jesus died on the cross and descended to hell until the Resurrection, and that satisfies God’s just demands for our sins. That is exactly why God is “faithful and just” (1 John 1:9) to forgive our sins when we confess: because Christ has already atoned for our sins, it would be unjust for God to punish us for those same sins - it would be exacting a double penalty for the same offense.

As for physical death, St. Paul answers this directly in Romans 8:10:

But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Sin is corrupting and leads to physical death, but not ultimate death because we have the hope of resurrection because “He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through the Spirit who dwells in you.” (Romans 8:11)

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I heard and evangelical thank Jesus the other day for taking on all of God’s wrath and punishment on the cross at Calvary, so we didn’t have to. I was a little puzzled by his words, because this seems to go along with the objection I’ve heard quite often from Atheists, who characterize God as a bloodthirsty tyrant who killed his own son (Jesus) on the cross. They have the mindset that Jesus was sacrificed against his will in order to fulfill the requirements of his sadistic father.

I was puzzled thinking to myself Jesus wasn’t punished by God for our sins he freely laid down his life for us?

I have been searching, with no luck, for the past 4 days for a Bible basis for this line of thinking. I didn’t want to go into this blindly with him or come off as confronting.

I was hoping some of my non-Catholic brothers and sisters on this site might be able to help me out and pass along some scripture where the wrath of God punishing Jesus might come from.

Or

Some of my Catholic brothers and sisters could chime in on why it isn’t Biblical.

Thanks for your time

It is Biblical in a sense. The sacrifice of Jesus did satisfy the wrath of God.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

It is Biblical in a sense. The sacrifice of Jesus did satisfy the wrath of God.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!
Romans 5:9

 

[ltwin]

I was good with this until I came to the word diverted on to Christ. The wording just doesn’t sound right. It makes it sound like Christ had no choice.

He did have a choice, but, as in all things, he obeyed the will of his Father. “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26:39). Divert simply means to “cause (someone or something) to change course or turn from one direction to another.” Because Jesus willingly offered himself as a pure sacrifice, God the Father turned from punishing us to punishing Jesus in our place.

Just not to sure about that word destructive. I think Perfect Divine Judgement is a better expression.

Well, OK. God’s judgment can be both perfect and destructive (just read 1 Samuel 15:3), and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), which I have a hard time conceiving of anything else but destructive.

Also, how can you “exhaust” an eternal being? Wouldn’t Jesus sacrifice on the cross need to be an eternal sacrifice for an eternal judgement?

It doesn’t have to be an eternal sacrifice to have eternal consequences. Jesus is no longer on the cross but is at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us (Romans 8:34). As to how his sacrifice could exhaust the judgment of the Father, we need to remember that Jesus is also God. Because he is God, his sacrifice would have infinite merit that the Father could accept for all of mankind’s sins.

“For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Hebrews 9:13-14).

These words are the first line of Psalm 22 which prophesied the Passion of our Lord. If we read the entire Psalm we come to the realization that Jesus did not think that his Father had given up on him but that he showed confidence that the Father wouldn’t abandon him.

Yes, this is true.

Jesus and the Father are one, how can they in anyway be separated?

There are probably others who could answer that question much better than myself. As for me, I don’t think we can say for sure, and it probably defies an explanation. We are told that “For our sake God made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). God is a holy God, but Christ took on the punishment and iniquity of us all. It is a mystery, but it happened.

Thanks, but still don’t understand. I think the “God’s anger” and “Jesus being punished” is taking it a little to far. I’m OK with saying Jesus paid the price due to God for the eternal punishment due for our sins. But to say Jesus was “punished” is to make it seem like he became “guilty” of our sins. Don’t see how one person can be guilty of something they didn’t do. As a father I can pay the money due for something my son messed up, but I can’t become guilty (substituted) for his sin.

But Jesus did take our punishment. The punishment for sin is death. Blood must be shed to atone for it; "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins "(Hebrews 9:22). This is the whole purpose of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament; God showed his mercy by allowing the Jews to substitute the blood of animals. The animals were not guilty of sin, but the sins of the people were transferred on to them and their deaths substituted for the death of the people.

Likewise, Jesus was not guilty of sin, but our sins were transferred onto him. He died, so that his blood could purify us and make forgiveness possible. “But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26)

I’ve heard this before and I just can’t see it. To say an all knowing, omnipresent God no longer sees us but sees his son just seems to put a limitation on God. I think he sees both.

The Apostle Paul wrote:

“I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).

Those who belong to Christ are in Christ, and we are told in Scripture that “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). That is what the reality of baptism is all about–the old man being buried in Christ’s death and rising a new creation in Christ’s resurrection. The life of the Christian is one wholly in and through and absorbed into Christ.

This is why we are justified not by anything we can do, but solely by the merit of Christ who gave himself up for us and endured our punishment for sin on the cross. Either Christ lives in you or he doesn’t. Either you are in Christ or you are outside of him. For those who are in Christ, God sees Christ and his righteousness (not our sins). For those outside of Christ, God sees their sin and will judge them accordingly.

Thanks for all your help, I still have a lot of research to do. The whole Jesus was our substitute and God was satisfied by taking his anger out on Christ and punishing him instead just doesn’t make sense. Just from a logical standpoint if the punishment for sin is death (Hell) wouldn’t Christ need to be in Hell to satisfy God’s wrath?

He certainly died, temporarily. We are taught in the Apostles Creed that he “descended into Hell.”

 

[grannymh]

The hidden danger in some of the “atonement” concepts is the notion that the Catholic Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation is not important. There is the old saying “Once saved, always saved.” This saying effectively omits intellective free choice as an essential element of human nature. It omits the universal truth that we humans need to be sorry for our personal sins. Personal sorrow and seeking God’s mercy is real. Not only did Jesus open the gates of heaven, He established the Catholic Church so that He could remain with us in our journey to joy eternal with our God, following bodily death.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for the response. That’s what seemed strange to me. How could Jesus be punished for something I did. I believe he paid the price for our sins but just can’t see, from scriptural, how he took on our guilt as well.

Perhaps it is time to recognize that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity assumed human nature and not absorbed human nature. Because Jesus did not absorb human nature there is no reason to say that He took on our guilt.

One could say that Jesus “paid the price for our sins” by His obedience. It is His obedience unto death which made possible the grace of Baptism. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases the State of Original Sin. (refer to CCC 405) And thus we are in the State of Sanctifying Grace. (CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

 

[alwayswill]

…
I was puzzled thinking to myself Jesus wasn’t punished by God for our sins he freely laid down his life for us?
…

Why not both?
Why can’t it be that Jesus freely laid His life down as He accepted punishment for our sins.

Isaiah 53
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
…

10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.

 

[alwayswill]

What does propitiation mean?
How was Christ’s work on the cross propitiatory?

 

[MT1926]

God the Father turned from punishing us to punishing Jesus in our place.

Thanks for the response. But I still can’t see where this is coming from. Is there an actual verse in the Bible that says Jesus was punished? I am starting to wonder if we are using 2 different definitions of the word punish. When I read the word punish I define it to mean to make someone suffer for a crime (sin) they committed. That is why the word does not seem to fit. First, off Jesus did not commit the crime so how could he be punished for it or guilty of said crime? Second, I can’t seem to grasp the concept of God doing the punishing. Wouldn’t that have only been possible if he took away the free will of all those involved in the crucifixion? Finally, if Jesus was already punished for everyone’s crimes that would mean not even repentance would be required or we could go as far as saying not even needing Faith in Christ. I can’t see how or why God would punish Jesus for I sin I committed and then turn around and punish me for the same sin. If “God the Father satisfied his justice by punishing Jesus instead of you and me.” why is there still punishment for an unrepentant or unbelieving sinner?

Well, OK. God’s judgment can be both perfect and destructive (just read 1 Samuel 15:3), and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), which I have a hard time conceiving of anything else but destructive.

Fair enough

It doesn’t have to be an eternal sacrifice to have eternal consequences. Jesus is no longer on the cross but is at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us (Romans 8:34). As to how his sacrifice could exhaust the judgment of the Father, we need to remember that Jesus is also God. Because he is God, his sacrifice would have infinite merit that the Father could accept for all of mankind’s sins.

Yes Jesus is making intercession for us not only at the right hand but also as the lamb the eternal sacrifice depicted in Revelation 5.

We are told that “For our sake God made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). God is a holy God, but Christ took on the punishment and iniquity of us all. It is a mystery, but it happened.

I agree it is a mystery but I do not think this verse can be taken literally. Jesus can not become sin, because sin is the lack of something good in our nature, and Christ cannot become something against his nature. So I believe this verse is saying he became a sin offering as a sacrifice to God in love.

But Jesus did take our punishment. The punishment for sin is death. Blood must be shed to atone for it; "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins "(Hebrews 9:22). This is the whole purpose of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament; God showed his mercy by allowing the Jews to substitute the blood of animals. The animals were not guilty of sin, but the sins of the people were transferred on to them and their deaths substituted for the death of the people.

I’m good with the whole animal sacrifice part, but if you are saying that punishment equals death then you are in essence saying it was God that killed Jesus and I can’t see that in Scripture anywhere.

This is why we are justified not by anything we can do, but solely by the merit of Christ who gave himself up for us and endured our punishment for sin on the cross. Either Christ lives in you or he doesn’t. Either you are in Christ or you are outside of him. For those who are in Christ, God sees Christ and his righteousness (not our sins). For those outside of Christ, God sees their sin and will judge them accordingly.

Yeah this one is over my head. How do you know if you are in or out of Christ? Is it a feeling? Is it something you do? Do you just tell yourself that you are?
1 John 3:6 says No one who abides in him sins;[a] no one who sins has either seen him or known him. So if you sin the Bible says you do not know him which I’m guessing would take away the covering of Christ and you will be seen as your sinful self, correct?

 

[ltwin]

Thanks for the response. But I still can’t see where this is coming from. Is there an actual verse in the Bible that says Jesus was punished?

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6).

“Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief . . .” (Isaiah 53:10).

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

As Wayne Grudem writes in Systematic Theology (p. 577):

Herein we see something of the amazing love of both God the Father and God the Son in redemption. Not only did Jesus know that he would bear the incredible pain of the cross, but God the Father also knew that he would have to inflict this pain on his own deeply loved Son. “God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).

I am starting to wonder if we are using 2 different definitions of the word punish. When I read the word punish I define it to mean to make someone suffer for a crime (sin) they committed. That is why the word does not seem to fit. First, off Jesus did not commit the crime so how could he be punished for it or guilty of said crime?

If you commit a crime, but I, out of my love for you, confess to the crime and am found guilty, then I will indeed suffer punishment for your crime. It just so happens that Jesus was the only being in existence who could be a perfect sacrifice for us. I may be able to be your substitute in a human legal system, but I would never be an acceptable substitute for you before God because I have my own sins to account for. Jesus was the only God-man, the only human being who was without sin. There was no plan B. There was only him.

Second, I can’t seem to grasp the concept of God doing the punishing. Wouldn’t that have only been possible if he took away the free will of all those involved in the crucifixion?

No. God was perfectly able to accomplish all his other plans throughout history even considering the existence of free will. Why would the crucifixion be different?

But more to the point, according to the penal substitution view, a crucial aspect of the atonement is that Christ, as a propitiation, bore the wrath of God instead of us. The very fact that there is “no condemnation” for those in Christ is because the wrath of God has already been poured out on Christ. There is no wrath left for those who are washed in the blood. Both the mercy and the justice of God are satisfied.

Continued next post