Gods wrath poured out on Jesus while on the cross?

I was listening to podcast today and a baptist gentlemen made the following comment:

“Christ was the sinless perfect son of God, he was falsely accused, rejected by his own people, he was beaten and spat upon and was nailed to a cross and than the appropriate measure of Gods Wrath from Heaven that Christ didn’t deserve, he allowed that to be put on him”

I have never heard of Gods wrath being put on Jesus while on the cross!! Now admittedly I am not baptist so this might be a baptist thing.

Has anyone heard of this and where does this come from?

Thanks in advance

The Protestant view of ‘how’ Jesus’ sacrifice actually ‘worked’ is called Penal Substitution. According to that view, Jesus’ death was really just a business transaction: through sin, we had earned the punishment of God. Jesus came and picked up the tab for us. Since he paid a debt that we could not, we are now saved.

That whole “paying a debt for us” thing is where the “wrath of God” idea fits in. We deserved to be punished, but Jesus took on the punishment – the “wrath of God” – in our place.

(Catholics see it differently, and our perspective has the fancy name “substitutionary atonement”, but since you didn’t ask about how we view things, I won’t go into the details, unless you particularly want them… ;))

Sure what is substitutionary atonement?

My understanding is that the sacrifice was done out of Gods love for us and the blood of an animal was never going to be sufficient therefore for Heaven to be open only the blood of Christ would be sufficient.

Yeah what is substitutionary atonement? I went to Catholic school and even a Catholic university and I always thought the Catholic view was the one outlined in the original post. :confused:

Penal substitution is actually a form of substitutionary atonement. Substitutionary atonement does not refer to any specific theory of atonement but is an umbrella term for any atonement theory that involves Christ dying in our place or as our substitute.

The Catholic position is more specifically called the “Satisfaction of Christ” theory of atonement introduced by Anselm of Canterbury, which the Reformed developed penal substitutionary atonement out of.

The Satisfaction theory was itself an improvement or clarification on the older “Ransom” and “Christus Victor” theories of the atonement.

Also, there is not “Protestant” view of the atonemnet. Penal substitution is one view that his very popular among Protestants, especially those influenced by Calvinism. But there are others. Many Protestants from the Arminian tradition adopt the Governmental theory of atonement.

Christ suffering on His Cross is His victory over human death. Human death originally occurred because the original human could not repair the damage of his Original Sin. This amazing victory brought about the reconciliation of humanity with Divinity.

Yep, fair enough; but it’s the one that seems (at least from my perspective) to be the one most likely to be encountered. I hesitated writing it up like that… but I was in a hurry this morning. :wink:

The Catholic position is more specifically called the “Satisfaction of Christ” theory of atonement introduced by Anselm of Canterbury

Yep. ‘Satisfaction’, not ‘substitution’. That should teach me to post quickly, and before my first cup of coffee… :blush:

The notion that an angry God demanded a blood sacrifice from his only Son to appease his wrath toward humanity is a foreign concept among the Fathers and Catholic theologians. “Atonement” in the broadest sense means to reconcile or to make one. It has taken on a narrower meaning in theology to denote the satisfaction of an offense or injury against God.

It is humanity that has committed the offense against God. That offense is sin, and some satisfaction must be offered in order to reconcile humanity with God to make them one again. The problem is that the offense of sin against God is too great for humanity to repair on its own. In other words, humanity alone is unable to atone for the injustice it has committed (and will commit) against God.

St. Anselm is credited with developing from the the patristic writings and scripture the concept of “vicarious atonement.” Since humanity is unable alone to satisfy the offense of sin, God became man through the Incarnation. This one man (Jesus), who is also God, is the only person who can make the perfect satisfaction for humanity’s sins. That satisfaction consists of his complete obedience to God, obedience unto death on the cross.

Peter Abelard later expanded and clarified St. Anselm’s teachings into what today has become a primary basis for most modern Catholic teaching on the atonement. The Catholic Encyclopedia states it best here: “And, in his view, the reason for the Incarnation and the death of Christ was the pure love of God. By no other means could men be so effectually turned from sin and moved to love God.”

It is Abelard then who finally placed the focus on God’s love for humanity above all other things. Man has willingly sinned, has chosen to separate himself from God. In order to turn man back to God, to allow humanity to be one with Him, God became man and gave humanity the perfect example of obedience to follow - his Son Jesus.

Rather than a God who sacrificed his own Son out of wrath to satisfy his own anger, it is a God who out of his infinite love for humanity showed us the way to come back to him; so that we can be reconciled and become one with Him. Abelard and later Aquinas came to the remarkable conclusion that Jesus’ vicarious atonement was more than necessary to satisfy the offense of sin. Nevertheless, God chose to experience death on the cross to show his superabundance of love for us and the way to our own salvation.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.