Jesus taking on all of God's wrath & punishment

[spiderweb]

The teachings of a number in the early church included penal substitution, including those who have been named saints and doctors of the church. This does not mean it was their only view but they did write on it. Unless I missed it, penal substitution was one of the few things taught in the Reformation that was not condemned by the Council of Trent.

Thanks for the quotes, but to my knowledge it has never been taught officially by the Church or any Church council even though individuals within the church may hold that belief.

 

[MT1926]

I have pondered over this very question many times in the past. Largely because in the Book of Mormon there is a scripture that posits the same scenario. It says,

Thanks for your response. I haven’t studied much on the Book of Mormon yet, but welcome your point of view.

Now, take the writing as scripture or not, but consider the issue. To start, forget for a moment all the spiritual teachings you have learned and just consider the point as a rational individual. Can one person commit a crime and another person suffer for it such that the first is absolved? I say “No”. And despite all religious teaching over the last 2,000 years I say Jesus also cannot suffer in the place of another and absolve that one from sin. A person must suffer for the crime he or she commits, no one else can take the punishment, be they man or God. No power in heaven or on earth can change that important fact.

This is kind of what I was getting at. The double punishment scenario.

Now, don’t stop reading, I do believe in the atonement. It just has to be understood in a more correct way. Consider a mother, one who loves her child deeply. Suppose this child is suffering through cancer or some other terrible disease. What would that mother not do for her child? She cannot take what the child is feeling away, but she can be there with them. She can bear with her child and feel an empathy that reaches into her own heart and into the child’s heart. May I submit that on a larger and more complete scale this mother’s example is closer to what Jesus has done for us? He does not take our punishment from us, but rather bears it with us. He has decided that infinitely and eternally he will join with us, if we will let him, to feel what we feel, to comfort us when we need comfort, and to rejoice with us when we find joy. As he said, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. (John 15:5). And again, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us…” (John 17:20-21).

As I said above, I haven’t studied much on the Book of Mormon yet, but I must say you sure do point out a lot of similarities to the Catholic position of atonement.

Thanks for joining in.

 

[MT1926]

The teachings of a number in the early church included penal substitution, including those who have been named saints and doctors of the church. This does not mean it was their only view but they did write on it. Unless I missed it, penal substitution was one of the few things taught in the Reformation that was not condemned by the Council of Trent.

Thanks for the response Sy. I haven’t gotten in to the church Fathers as of yet, so can’t really respond. However, I do appreciate the list of quotes, it will give me some further direction to my studies on this subject.

 

[MT1926]

The teachings of a number in the early church included penal substitution, including those who have been named saints and doctors of the church. This does not mean it was their only view but they did write on it. Unless I missed it, penal substitution was one of the few things taught in the Reformation that was not condemned by the Council of Trent.

Augustine

Death is the effect of the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment which follows.**Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment… **

 

[SyCarl]

Ok I’m not a great scholar but I gave Augustine a look. Before getting to your bolding in question let’s first point out what Augustine’s definition of sin is:

Also, we need to point out:

Finally the line just before what you quoted says:

Like I said I am no scholar but from what I understand of Augustine’s writings here he is not speaking of penal substitution, that Jesus became our sin. He is saying the very fact that humans eventually die (because of original sin) added to the fact that Christ took on a human nature is how the verse “he became sin” should be interpreted. Basically, from what I see here, Augustine is pointing out that Christ’s willingness to die as a human shows the substitution aspect, not in the way my original post was structured.

I’m hoping someone more scholarly than I can chime in on this. But I will keep reading the other links you shared.

Thanks for the insight.

The essence of penal substitution is that Christ took our punishment on Himself. It does not require that He became sin but that He died as if He was a sinner carrying our sin.

 

[MT1926]

The essence of penal substitution is that Christ took our punishment on Himself. It does not require that He became sin but that He died as if He was a sinner carrying our sin.

I’m not real sure where you are going with this Sy. I was addressing your comment that the early church fathers taught penal substitution. I was just pointing out that, even though you said you did, you failed to give us the context of what was being said. Augustine points out that sin means both a bad action deserving punishment, and death the consequence of sin. Christ has no sin in the sense of deserving death, but He bore for our sakes sin in the sense of death as brought on human nature by sin. This is what hung on the tree; this is what was cursed by Moses. Thus was death condemned that its reign might cease, and cursed that it might be destroyed. By Christ’s taking our sin in this sense, its condemnation is our deliverance, while to remain in subjection to sin is to be condemned.

So reading this in context do you believe Augustine taught that Christ was a substitute and was punished in our place?

 

[SyCarl]

I’m not real sure where you are going with this Sy. I was addressing your comment that the early church fathers taught penal substitution. I was just pointing out that, even though you said you did, you failed to give us the context of what was being said. Augustine points out that sin means both a bad action deserving punishment, and death the consequence of sin. Christ has no sin in the sense of deserving death, but He bore for our sakes sin in the sense of death as brought on human nature by sin. This is what hung on the tree; this is what was cursed by Moses. Thus was death condemned that its reign might cease, and cursed that it might be destroyed. By Christ’s taking our sin in this sense, its condemnation is our deliverance, while to remain in subjection to sin is to be condemned.

So reading this in context do you believe Augustine taught that Christ was a substitute and was punished in our place?

Yes, I do believe that is what Augustine taught in this place. The quote I gave clearly indicates that Christ was guiltless. Then Augustine says exactly what you are asking above.

Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty,** but as hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment**

 

[MT1926]

Yes, I do believe that is what Augustine taught in this place. The quote I gave clearly indicates that Christ was guiltless. Then Augustine says exactly what you are asking above.

I’m not 100% sure if we are on the same page here. My original question was in regards to:

“Jesus taking on all of God’s wrath and punishment on the cross at Calvary, so we didn’t have to”

I further said:

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

Now we seem to be on the same page that Jesus was guiltless.

However, you go on to say:

Then Augustine says exactly what you are asking above.

Quote:
Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment

I’m not seeing how this quote ties into my original questions. I was speaking of the evangelical stating that it was God that personally punished Jesus to satisfy his wrath, so we wouldn’t have to.

There are a few things we need to keep in mind here. First, the quote you speak of above says nothing of God specifically doing the punishing, which is my OP.

Also, as you mentioned the context is very important, but then you hone in on one sentence and say see “Augustine taught in this place”. However, in this place Augustine isn’t giving us a teaching he is refuting and argument from Faustus. So I wouldn’t be expecting him to get into the minute details of the teachings on Atonement, I would only expect him to get into it far enough to refute the incorrect argument. From reading this about 4 times it seems that the only thing Augustine is trying to prove here is that there is no blasphemy in Moses words “Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree.” Deuteronomy 21:23. So Augustine’s main priority is to prove that Christ was not cursed by God in what I am understanding a direct sense. It seems it is more indirect. The death of human flesh equates to sin and the punishment for sin is death. Now Christ isn’t cursed because he himself is a sinner. He is cursed because he took on (a substitute for us) human flesh and died (punishment for sin). Basically it seems cursed = death = punishment. Nothing about God doing the whipping. Now the substitution Augustine seems to be talking is here:

But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offenses, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment. And these words “every one” are intended to check the ignorant officiousness which would deny the reference of the curse to Christ, and so, because the curse goes along with death, would lead to the denial of the true death of Christ.

He seems to be saying he was our substitute by taking on human flesh, not by actually becoming our sins.

I don’t know, I am not smart enough, yet, to fully understand the minds of the Church Fathers. Hopefully, some day I will. But I can tell that the punishment and substitution Augustine is speaking of is no where close to what my evangelical’s prayer was.

 

[SyCarl]

I’m not 100% sure if we are on the same page here. My original question was in regards to:

I further said:

Now we seem to be on the same page that Jesus was guiltless.

However, you go on to say:
I’m not seeing how this quote ties into my original questions. I was speaking of the evangelical stating that it was God that personally punished Jesus to satisfy his wrath, so we wouldn’t have to.

There are a few things we need to keep in mind here. First, the quote you speak of above says nothing of God specifically doing the punishing, which is my OP.

Also, as you mentioned the context is very important, but then you hone in on one sentence and say see “Augustine taught in this place”. However, in this place Augustine isn’t giving us a teaching he is refuting and argument from Faustus. So I wouldn’t be expecting him to get into the minute details of the teachings on Atonement, I would only expect him to get into it far enough to refute the incorrect argument. From reading this about 4 times it seems that the only thing Augustine is trying to prove here is that there is no blasphemy in Moses words “Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree.” Deuteronomy 21:23. So Augustine’s main priority is to prove that Christ was not cursed by God in what I am understanding a direct sense. It seems it is more indirect. The death of human flesh equates to sin and the punishment for sin is death. Now Christ isn’t cursed because he himself is a sinner. He is cursed because he took on (a substitute for us) human flesh and died (punishment for sin). Basically it seems cursed = death = punishment. Nothing about God doing the whipping. Now the substitution Augustine seems to be talking is here:

He seems to be saying he was our substitute by taking on human flesh, not by actually becoming our sins.

I don’t know, I am not smart enough, yet, to fully understand the minds of the Church Fathers. Hopefully, some day I will. But I can tell that the punishment and substitution Augustine is speaking of is no where close to what my evangelical’s prayer was.

I am sorry but I did not really read your original post. I was replying to an assertion that penal substitution had not been taught by the Church for 2000 years. I quoted to show that Christ dying as our substitute by taking our punishment was not a new idea. Now if Christ took our punishment from whom were we liable to punishment? In any case I don’t think that God had to be the one who actually inflicted the punishment except in the sense that He allowed Jesus to be punished. He used others, such as the Philistines and Babylonians to inflict promised punishment on Israel.

That Augustine uses this example in arguing a different point seems to me to indicate that Christ’s substitution was not a controversial topic that would take away from the rest of his argument. I do think it was an essential part of his argument. He was arguing that Christ had a real body. He asks how Christ could have take our punishment if He did not have a real body.

While it might not be a perfect model, I think of it as involving us as part of the body of Christ. Christ as the head is sinless. We as the rest of the body are sinners. When Christ died on the cross God chose to view His body as our sinful part of it. Corresponding to this, when God looks at us now He sees us in our sinless head and does not attribute our sin to us.

I will provide another quote which does not explicitly say that Christ took but does make clear the idea that exchange that took place.

Mathetes

But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that** its reward, punishment and death,** was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great longsuffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!

(The Epistle to Diognetus, 9)
newadvent.org/fathers/0101.htm

 

[MT1926]

I am sorry but I did not really read your original post. I was replying to an assertion that penal substitution had not been taught by the Church for 2000 years. I quoted to show that Christ dying as our substitute by taking our punishment was not a new idea.

Yeah that is the tough part. As you said context is everything. If you would have read spider’s earlier posts you would have noticed that we were speaking in the context of Jesus being a substitute for the guilt or punishment of our sin.

The “substitution of Christ as the suffering servant who makes himself an offering for sin” is the substitution of the offering and not the substitution of the guilt or punishment. Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins not be being punished in our place, but by making a perfect offering in our place and thus reconciling mankind to God.

This is the context of what the Church has not in 2000 years.

Now if Christ took our punishment from whom were we liable to punishment?

Sorry I don’t understand the question?

Corresponding to this, when God looks at us now He sees us in our sinless head and does not attribute our sin to us.

That doesn’t sound right? Where are you getting this in the Bible? Are you saying there will be no judgement?

Jesus says if we don’t keep the commandments his Father will attribute our sins to us.
Matt.19: 17*“And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good.If you would enter life, keep the commandments."

 

[KjetilK]

I was replying to an assertion that penal substitution had not been taught by the Church for 2000 years. I quoted to show that Christ dying as our substitute by taking our punishment was not a new idea.

Well, it depends entirely on what you mean by it. If you say that he, in compassion with us, and to transform us, carried some of the consequences of sin – such as death – then there’s no problem. If, however, you say, with Calvin, that our punishment was ‘transferred’ to Christ, you affirm a self-contradiction, as the punishment for sin is eternal damnation – everlasting separation from God. You cannot finitely punish someone with an infinite punishment. That is a clear self-contradiction. There is no such thing as finite infinity or infinite finiteness.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by SyCarl

The teachings of a number in the early church included penal substitution, including those who have been named saints and doctors of the church. This does not mean it was their only view but they did write on it. Unless I missed it, penal substitution was one of the few things taught in the Reformation that was not condemned by the Council of Trent.

As you are aware, just because individuals within the Church teach a certain thing, does not mean that the Church herself teaches it. The classic example being circumcision Acts Chapter 15. One reason that the Council of Trent may not have addressed Penal Substitution is because there is a sense in which it can be understood to be correct and can be seen expressed in the Church Fathers that you quoted and in your own definition of penal substitution Post #63 (although you seem to agree more with the one expressed by Itwin).

”The essence of penal substitution is that Christ took our punishment on Himself. It does not require that he became sin but that He died as if He was a sinner carrying our sin.”

However the Penal Substitution that has been discussed from the OP and as defined by Itwin in Post #3:

“Jesus was punished (penalized) in our place (substitution) so that we could be forgiven”. And specifically that Jesus was punished by God the Father in place of punishing us.

To hopefully demonstrate the difference, I will use key points from Augustine.

Originally Posted by SyCarl (Post #56)

Augustine:
Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment….Exemption from Adam’s curse implies exemption from his death.

For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon Him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt.

Notice that there is a key element missing here and that is that Christ was actively being punished by the Father. Example: A child is actively punished for an offence by not being able to watch TV. Another child freely chooses not to watch TV. Both children are undergoing the same “penalty/punishment” of not watching TV, but only one of them is actively being punished.

Another important aspect is that Augustine is specifically addressing this in regards to Redemption of all mankind from the Original Sin of Adam, and not the personal salvation of an individual. In a sense, the substitution aspect is correct in regards to Redemption (Christ redeemed all mankind for eternal life through his death). However the view of Penal Substitution, as being discussed in this thread, takes it a step further and says not only did he substitute his death for our life, he also substituted our punishment from God due to personal sins and was punished instead by God.

The idea that God the Father actively punished Jesus at the Crucifixion is not scriptural. We are responsible for “punishing” Jesus (Hebrews 6:6, Acts 9:4, Matthew 25:40-45). On the cross, Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). Yes, Jesus did undergo the penalty and punishment of sin (suffering and death), but he himself was not actively being punished by God the Father in substitution of us. God’s wrath was not being poured out upon Jesus; the wrath of mankind was being poured out upon Jesus. Penal substitution has it backwards.

Of the Church Fathers that you quoted, only Eusebius of Caesarea seems to be in full agreement with the common view of Penal Substitution as expressed today. But Chrysostom and Gregory the Great could also be viewed that way although considering their other teachings (like prayers for the dead, a purification after death (purgatory), and penance for personal sins), if would be hard to say that they would agree with the common view of Penal Substitution since that would be a direct contradiction of those other tenants of the faith that they express in other writings. Augustine, Theodore of Heraclea, and Athanasius could not be used to support the common view of Penal Substitution because all three of them express it in regards to universal Redemption and not personal Salvation and none of those speak of God the Father as actively punishing Jesus.

One seems to support and two others very tenuously could be said to support penal substitution. In my opinion, that’s a poor representation of the beliefs of the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church as a whole, and it is not consistent with other doctrines which these same Church Fathers express and that the Church has taught, at least implicitly, prior to these Fathers.

 

[GLam8833]

“The foolishness of God is wiser than men”
1 Cor. 1:25 God sent His Son in the flesh to
be the sacrifice for sin(Rom. 8:3) to condemn
sinful flesh(v.3) Jesus offered His own Flesh
as a fragrant offering(sinless) to God so that
the Law of God can be satisfied(Eph. 5:2;
1 Cor. 15:56) He was raised again B/C He
was sinless and resulted in our justification.
(Acts 2:24; Rom. 4:25)

What should be our response to all this:
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, you and your
household, and you WILL be saved!!!”
Acts 16:31

 

[grannymh]

Just curious.

Has anyone discussed the fact that Christ’s “substitution” means that He took the place of the one first human on earth? None of us have the status of the first human.

Tiny note: Not every word of the Early Church Fathers and the Great Saints automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine.

 

[MT1926]

Just curious.

Has anyone discussed the fact that Christ’s “substitution” means that He took the place of the one first human on earth? None of us have the status of the first human.

Thanks Granny. I’m not disagreeing but could you give me a little more information on how one would back this discussion up with facts?

I tried researching it a little in the Catechism and couldn’t really find anything. This is what I found that doesn’t directly contradict your statement but doesn’t flow with it either.

**Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience **
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

(3) Obedience of Christ: Jesus Christ substituted his obedience to the will of his Father, even unto death, for the disobedience of sin, in order to bring us the grace of justification and to satisfy for our sins (615).

The Catechism speaks of the substitution of his obedience (an offering for sin) to the Father. I couldn’t find anything about the substitution meaning he took the place of the first Adam.

359 “In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”224
St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ . . . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life . . . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: “I am the first and the last.”225

I also looked up the relation of Adam and Christ and this is what I came up with. If the last Adam (Christ) is indeed the first, how does one become a substitute for something that they already are?

Like I said not disagreeing with you just not understanding where you are going with this statement.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks Granny. I’m not disagreeing but could you give me a little more information on how one would back this discussion up with facts?

I tried researching it a little in the Catechism and couldn’t really find anything. This is what I found that doesn’t directly contradict your statement but doesn’t flow with it either.

The Catechism speaks of the substitution of his obedience (an offering for sin) to the Father. I couldn’t find anything about the substitution meaning he took the place of the first Adam.

I also looked up the relation of Adam and Christ and this is what I came up with. If the last Adam (Christ) is indeed the first, how does one become a substitute for something that they already are?

Like I said not disagreeing with you just not understanding where you are going with this statement.

Thank you for challenging me to figure out what I said.

And thank you for the CCC citations. I usually use some of the paragraphs in CCC 355-421 because one has to understand the relationship between the first human Adam and his Creator before we can understand the Incarnation of Christ and His mission. (last sentence, CCC 389) Thus, I am grateful for your CCC 359. That is one very full paragraph which I rarely try to delve into it.

To begin the attempt at CCC 359.
Because the Catholic Church affirms that the Original Sin took place at the *beginning of the history of man *(CCC 390), I first need to know just who that original man is. According to CCC 359, the first man known as Adam became a living soul. When we study the first three chapters of Genesis, we find an abrupt change from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27. The fact is that man is not the same as the animals in the previous verses. By starting with the facts in those first three chapters, I can shift to the meaning of “The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul,” (CCC 359) The living soul is how we are in the image of God. Genesis 1: 27.

I think where I get lost, is that I am used to seeing God the Father as “Maker of heaven and earth” and Jesus in these lines “For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven,” (Creed professed at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass)

Now, when I look at the Incarnation, One Divine Person with two natures, I can start to unravel, for myself, CCC 359 – the words “… in order that He might not lose what He had made in His own image.” There is the fact that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, as God, assumed human nature. Jesus assumed the original human nature (without sin) of Adam because Adam, who eventually chose to sin, could not repair the broken original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity. Having two natures could be why the one Person Jesus could step into Adam’s sandals as a human “substitute.”

Perhaps I am using a too broad a definition for substitution. Substitutions are made in sports like football, etc. Substitutes step in when the regulars can’t do the job. Adam, being human, could not do the job of repairing a friendship relationship created by a Divine Being. He, as the father of the human species, badly needed a valid divine substitute.

I do not see “disagreement” in your post. I see the desire to explore with the important tools of the universal Catechism. I do not deny CCC 615’s larger application to atonement for our faults. We still have to seek the mercy and forgiveness of our God which is a part of being an human seeking his Creator. (CCC 1730-32)

I look at the term substitution not as a one and only thing. I use a both-and approach which in the long run will answer the attacks against the Catholic teachings which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis.

In my opinion, there are more facts which would relate to the additional idea that Christ is the substitute for Adam. For example, there is a whale of a difference between God and Adam.

I would like to know what you are thinking. I would especially like to know if I made a theological error in the above.

Thank you.