The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Sufferings Of Christ Were God's Diciplinary Wrath

Theology Christology
#1

The penalty for sin in the Bible is spiritual death. This is the penalty that Christ paid on the cross. The physical suffering Christ endured was God’s disciplinary wrath not His penal wrath. The Bible tells us that Christ learned obedience through what He suffered. Moreover, Christ told James and John that they would drink from the cup He would drink from. Christ asked God to remove the cup yet He said not my will but Yours be done. Now, since the sins of James and John were punished at the cross then Jesus couldn’t have been referring to God’s penal wrath. For to punish James and John for their sins after they have already been punished on Christ would be a double payment for their sins which is unjust. The cup of God’s wrath in the Bible doesn’t have to be only penal. It’s often disciplinary. Another reason we know it was disciplinary is because of Isaiah 53:5 -

The chastening for our well being fell upon Him.

The Hebrew word here is musar

musar:

discipline, chastening, correction

The NASB Strongest Exhaustive Concordance

There is no penal element in this word. It’s for disciplinary or corrective purposes. It’s a masculine noun meaning instruction, discipline.

#2

I had an instance of disciplinary wrath. I believe God punished me in the flesh in order to correct me in the spirit. I had gone too far in my prodigal experience, so I was bitten by swine and left for the vultures. I am grateful for this after the event. Seeing God’s disciplinary hand actually helps me; although I am sure that others would see this as completely incidental.

I don’t think that Jesus needed to be disciplined though. This was a voluntary obedience of Christ to pay the ransom required for man’s salvation. It was an exchange of blood. Christ’s blood for the world’s blood. This was voluntary because God wanted us to experience His love through Christ. Seeing what Christ suffered helps us to see any of our own temporal pain in the right context. We have all been subjected to suffering through the power of sin; but through the power of Christ’s suffering, we have all been subjected to life. Those who believe in the ransom of Christ, and those who seek forgiveness and pardon for our own sinfulness, are given power to become son’s of God.

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” (John 1:12)

Those who do not believe, or who do not repent of their sins, are subjected to further punitive “disciplinary wrath” in the resurrection. God uses the language of fire, gnashing of teeth, tears and wailing to emphasize the value of receiving Christ’s atonement now. This “disciplinary wrath” is real IMO. It is not a literal hellfire, but it is a real “disciplinary wrath”. If God’s own people are subjected to disciplinary wrath; then surely it is fair to expect that those who reject repentance will also be subjected to disciplines. What are these disciplines? Well, they are not literal flames. The flame is merely symbolic of this discipline; just as christians go through a baptism of fire. What is certain is that there will be repentance of sins in the future. All people will bow their knee to Christ. It is best for christians and non-believers to repent now, for the process will be more rigorous in the future ages. If we are too permissive with our notions of sin now, we are actually harming people by not warning them about God’s demand for righteousness. That is my lowly opinion anyway.

Steve

#3

Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. - Hebrews 5:8-10

#4

‘Suffering’ was the model in which Christ experienced obedience on our behalf. This model was for our benefit. Are you suggesting that Christ lacked obedience? Or that Christ was disobedient, hence He needed to suffer?

Steve

#5

The above passage says Christ learned obedience through what He suffered. As a man Jesus didn’t know many things. He had to learn and grow and become perfect. It was through His sufferings that He learned obedience. It was for His benefit and ours as well.

Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. - Hebrews 5:8-10

Another reason we know it was disciplinary is because of Isaiah 53:5 -

The chastening for our well being fell upon Him.

The Hebrew word here is musar

musar:

discipline, chastening, correction

The NASB Strongest Exhaustive Concordance

There is no penal element in this word. It’s for disciplinary purposes. It’s a masculine noun meaning instruction, discipline.

#6

The danger with any interpretation of scripture is to read into the verses our own anthropomorphic perceptions. If Christ is God, and He is, then God the Son is fully complete. He was not disobedient in any form, and He did not need to be corrected as a fallen creature. Christ absorbed our own need for obedience through His suffering. This is just an example of how easily one can arrive at a misconception of the scriptures. If Christ was not perfect then we are all in trouble.

Steve

#7

Christ emptied Himself and became a man. The scripture above says Christ became perfect. He was the spotless Lamb Of God. Jesus had a finite and limited mind as a man. The Scripture is clear on this. He had to learn obedience through disciplinary suffering. There is no misconception of the passage. It means what it says. As a man He became perfect. As God He knew everything and had no need to learn and grow.

#8

This is an interesting discussion, and one I’ve thought about a lot. What did it mean for Jesus to “learn obedience by the things He suffered?” IMO, you both have some valid points. Jesus was not disobedient, as Stef rightly says, and yet Jesus as a man did learn many things. I don’t think He was cheating on the “human test.” He wasn’t (for example) Einstein visiting first grade math in the body of a small child and pretending to learn his numbers. I believe Jesus was/is fully human (as well as fully God, though He emptied Himself of His godhood as a human) and had to learn everything from how to use the potty to how to obey the most difficult instruction of all from His beloved Abba – to go to the cross. It was HARD for Him.

Though certainly He knew by then HOW to obey His Father, He hadn’t experienced as a man the difficulty of such a hard obedience. In all things He has been tested as we have and yet without sin. If He had gone to the cross as God, it would have meant a lot less to us weak humans that He endured the test and came out victorious. Imagine if you were in the classroom with Einstein in your freshman math in college. Would you be encouraged that he knew what you were going through just because he was also tested at the end of the semester? Jesus had a HARD time with the cross, and all the more because He knew He could choose NOT to go that route. To me, that is what it means to learn obedience by the things we suffer. We may intellectually know obedience, but we don’t KNOW it personally – as a man knows a woman – until we have DONE it – until we have obeyed when obedience cost us everything. That is, imo, some of what Jesus experienced as He went to the cross and suffered death for all of us.

#9

Cindy,

You may be right when you say Jesus didn’t sin. But as a man He wasn’t perfect in knowledge. He had to learn and grow. And He learned obedience through what He suffered just as the passage clearly says. He experienced God’s disciplinary wrath.

#10

Another NT scripture which helps to unfold the meaning of the obscure reference of Hebrews 5:8 is Philippians 2:8 -

“And being found in the appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross.” (NASB)

This scripture directly helps to explain the meaning of the suffering and obedience: it was an act of humility - not correction. John Owen’s comments below about Christ experiencing obedience:

‘Essentially, …though the Son, prior to the Incarnation, knew what obedience would involve theoretically, He gained full experiential knowledge of obedience only when He endured the Cross.’

Steve

#11

Definitions of discipline:

  1. Training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior, especially training that produces moral or mental improvement.

  2. Punishment intended to correct or train.

Discipline can involve punishment but it doesn’t have to. Christ wasn’t punished for His sin but being limited in knowledge He had to learn obedience though what He suffered. As a man His mind was finite. As God He was all-knowing. Jesus as a man had to learn and grow. And He learned obedience through what He suffered as He experienced God’s disciplinary wrath.

#12

Stef, yes! That’s exactly what I was trying to say.

And Cole, yes – you’re right in that Jesus didn’t know sin, and in that He needed discipline (read: training as a disciple) from His Father. You and I are agreed on that. I wouldn’t use the term “wrath,” though. I’m not sure what wrath means to you, but to most of the world it means anger and displeasure. I don’t think that Father was angry with and displeased with Jesus. Quite the opposite. It wasn’t Father who crucified our dear elder Brother. WE did that and God went along with it – He knew it would come to this of course and they (the Godhead) were agreed. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world.

There are many traditions that do teach that the Father was angry with the Son, as He saw our sins laid on Christ. I think they’re wrong, though. I don’t believe that Father has ever been angry with Jesus, not even as the vessel of our inequities.

#13

Cindy,

Why does wrath have to mean displeased with? The severity of God doesn’t always mean displeasure. I don’t know what the majority of the world believes but I go by the Bible on this.

#14

Isaiah 53:5 -

The chastening for our well being fell upon Him.

The Hebrew word here is musar

musar:

discipline, chastening, correction

The NASB Strongest Exhaustive Concordance

There is no penal element in this word. It’s for disciplinary or corrective purposes. It’s a masculine noun meaning instruction, discipline.

#15

Cole, I’m not disagreeing with you.

As for “wrath,” I’ve seen other thoughts on what the Hebrew/Greek word originally meant – thoughts which made sense – but to most of the English speaking world, “wrath” means:

wrath
[rath, rahth or, esp. British, rawth]
noun

  1. strong, stern, or fierce anger; deeply resentful indignation; ire.
  2. vengeance or punishment as the consequence of anger.

That’s why, for the sake of successful communication, I personally would choose to use a different word or phrase – either that or I would define what “wrath” means to me personally and why it means that to me. Still, like Humpty Dumpty (Lewis Carol’s “Through the Looking Glass”), I suppose you can use the word to mean anything you like, but if you make a word work very hard, you should always pay it extra. :laughing:

#16

I shall use the word severity of God then.

#17

What is the meaning you are trying convey with either severity or wrath?

#18

Here’s why I used the word wrath:

Before Christ suffered He asked God to remove the cup so that He wouldn’t have to suffer. The cup in scripture is always a cup of God’s wrath.

Isaiah 53 quoted above says that discipline will fall on Christ. Whose discipline? God’s. For Isaiah later in the same passage tells us that it was the will of the Lord to bruise Him. He has put Him to grief. He wasn’t punished for His sins for He was sinless. It was the discipline of God that fell on Him.

Hebrews not only tells us that Christ learned obedience through what He suffered but mentions how all God’s children receive discipline from the Father. The Lord disciplines those He loves to train them to become holy through hardships and suffering. This isn’t the Father’s punishment. Rather is God’s disciplinary training.

#19

Hi, Cole

I was curious and so I did a search for the times any of the original language words for “wrath” or “anger” were applied to Messianic prophecies and in particular to the Servant (in Isaiah that would be Jesus). I also looked for times “wrath” was applied to Jesus in the New Testament. I was surprised because I thought there would be something in Isaiah at least, but I couldn’t find any place where God is said to be angry or wroth with the Servant or with the Christ or with Jesus. All the wrath passages either involve God being wroth with ordinary humans or humans being wroth with one another.

Would you mind sharing your references for places where God is said to inflict wrath or severity on Jesus?

Thanks!
Cindy

Addendum: Okay, I see you’re talking about “the cup,” and about this passage in Is 53:

The Septuagint (as opposed to the Masoretic) translates it thus:

It’s a difficult passage for us to translate, but it seems to me that one might be justified in trusting the Septuagint (Jewish translation into the Greek) over the Masoretic, which is a later copy of the Hebrew. Stef perhaps knows more about that than I do. Here’s the link where I found the Septuagint translation of Is 53 into English: ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/isaiah/isa_053.htm

As for your reference to the “cup” always meaning “wrath/severity,” I’ll look into that. I’m not sure whether it is or not-- you may be right, but I don’t know without checking.

#20

Then perhaps you mean by the OP: The Sufferings Of Christ Were God’s Diciplinary Training

Both severity and wrath imply punitive discipline, which is a bit objectionable. The discipline in relation to Christ was non-punitive; hence without wrath.

“Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness.” (Romans 11:22)

Steve