Penal substitution (also called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed within the Reformed tradition (and the Lutheran tradition, to a lesser degree). It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins of men. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary
atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment.

Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able
to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ,
to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.


To remove the big english, penal substitution is the doctrine preached on nl by those who claim that God that God couldn't forgive us our sins without first punishing his own son.

Penal substition say that God didn't really forgive us our sins instead he took his son and punished his for all our sins, killed his son for all our sins and then sent him to hell fire for 3 day. It is the theory that says our salvation is in other words a work of divine injustice.

It is like saying your house dog bit your dad and instead to letting go and forgiving the dog, your father went and beat up you brothers for the sin of the dog. That is penal substitution, that someone was kill for another persons crimes.

It is unjust both to punish the innocent and to allow the guilty to go free, thus this theory is heavy suspect and may very well be the most popular heresy in christendom.



Before I go on I must state that I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ died FOR me and offered an atoning sacrifice for my sin that suffice for all sins! But I do not believe that God punished or penalise his son in place of me.

I believe penal substitution is against the nature of God and highly suspect for the following reason....

Penal substitution say that in Christ’s Passion and death, Christ bore the punishment of the Father’s wrath that the elect deserved for their sins. In the Reformed conception, this is what it means to bear the curse, to bear the Father’s wrath for sin. In Reformed thought, at Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father transferred all the sins (past, present, and future) of all the elect onto His Son. Then God the Father hated, cursed and damned His Son, who was evil in the Father’s sight on account of all the sins of the elect
being concentrated in the Son. (R.C. Sproul) In doing so, God the Father punished Christ for all the sins of the elect of all time. Because the sins of the elect are now paid for, through Christ’s having already been punished for them, the elect can never be punished for any sin they might ever commit, because every sin they might ever commit has already been punished.
For that reason Reformed theology is required to maintain that Christ died only for the elect.

The 1SR problem with the Reformed conception is that it would either make the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent), or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment,
then His suffering would be of no
benefit to us.

To put simply, it is unjust to kill an innocent man, command or will that an innocent man dies in place of a sinner.

Contra penal substitution, the Bible tells us that one person can- not be punished for another. Each one shall die for his own sins:

“The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”
But every one shall die for his own iniquity. (Jer 31:29-30) Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut 24:16)
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness
of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezek 18:20)

A second and more interesting problem with the Reformed
conception is the following dilemma.
If God the Father was pouring out His wrath on the Second Person of the Trinity, then God was divided against Himself, God the Father hating His own Word. God could hate the Son if and only if the Son were another being, that is, if polytheism or Arianism were true. But if God loved the Son, then it must be another person (besides the Son) whom God was hating during Christ’s Passion.
And hence that entails Nestorianism, i.e. That Christ was two persons, one divine and the other human. He loved the divine
Son but hated the human Jesus. Hence the Reformed conception conflicts with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son cannot be at odds. If
Christ loves men, then so does the
Father. Or, if the Father has wrath for men, then so does Christ. And, if the Father has wrath for the Son, then the Son must have no less wrath for Himself.

God has but One Will he cannot hate himself, if he did he would be a saddistic God, By nature it is impossible for God to hate himself, if you claim the father hated Jesus then you are either an arian or a polytheist, if you claim he hated only the "human Jesus" then you are a nestorian. It is simply not possible for God to hate condem and sentence his own beign to hell, it is against his nature.

Your Discuss is good. God made everything in his own way and to satisfy only Himself. This is not saying that God is Selfish but reinforcing the Righteousness of God. In the original Covenant with us at Creation, humans were to satisfy God in sacrifice of the first fruit of our lives.. In Pneumatology, God reversed this original covenant in two specific ways. First, He sent two Angels(Righteous Spirits) from Himself to Sodom to prove that there was no Righteousness in Sodom. Second, Jesus Christ is the first born of all righteousness. He came not just to die as you have said it all, but to give every body who believes in Him free VISA into ETERNITY.. You see, God's ways are different from ours but we can synchronise very well in communion with Him!

Even more suprising is the thought that God "poured his wrath" on his son, this is just suprising, because scriptures says Jesus offered up a sacrifices of sweet arroma to God, put simply God was looking down at Calvary and smiling, but this reformed concept claims that God was looking down from heaven with anger, disgust and probably hatred, instead of a sweet smeling aroma this concept says God looked down and poured down his wrath.

The irritation goes futher when penal substitution claim that Jesus went to the hell fire of the damned and suffered like those in hell fire, this theory claims that God was in hell fire. As though its list of blasphemy wasn't enough it says the fellowship in the trinity was broken, it say that God reckon sin to his son and broke off his relationship with him. I hope there are scholars here, it is impossible to break the fellowship of the trinity, to put it bluntly if there is no trinity then we have 3 Gods, this theory claims that 2000yrs ago we had 2 gods, the father disfellowship his son out of the Godhead. This is heresy of the highest degree.



So I wish to ask all who identify themselves as Christians to stay clear of this blasphemous heresy called penal substitution as it is substantially against the nature of God and an insult to the divinity.

Billia:
http://kjdobbs..com/2015/03/jesus-lookalike-found-in-zambia.html?m=1

this is not related to the topic.

Stop breaking nl rules

Orunto:
Your Discuss is good. God made everything in his own way and to satisfy only Himself. This is not saying that God is Selfish but reinforcing the Righteousness of God. In the original Covenant with us at Creation, humans were to satisfy God in sacrifice of the first fruit of our lives.. In Pneumatology, God reversed this original covenant in two specific ways. First, He sent two Angels(Righteous Spirits) from Himself to Sodom to prove that there was no Righteousness in Sodom. Second, Jesus Christ is the first born of all righteousness. He came not just to die as you have said it all, but to give every body who believes in Him free VISA into ETERNITY.. You see, God's ways are different from ours but we can synchronise very well in communion with Him!

It is true God's ways are unto his glory, and yes God sent is Son to save us and grant us access to heaven, my particular point is that God didn't damn his son. The sacrifice of Jesus isn't about God pouring wrath on earth, it is instead the expression of God's sacrificial love, God who gives himself to show the fullness of his love.

But penal substitution is essence of christian belief that Jesus died to save humankind.

Bishop Anselm put it more elagantly when he wrote Adam comitted infinite sin against god, therefore man owed an infinite debt to God that could only be redeemed, not by finite sacrifices, but by infinite sacrifice, the sacrifice of the infinite one himself.

Anselm's theory implies that the sacrifice of Jesus was simply a celestial Banking transaction where the books just needed to be balanced.

LOL, Ubenedictus is tugging at a loose string, not realizing that it is attached to a house of cards.

For thousands of years, the God supposedly rendered preferential treatment to one small tribe of humans, at the expense, often fatal expense, of everyone else. You didn't see any character flaws in that behavior, but this penal substitution business is the one paining you. LOL.

I didn't see anything wrong with virgins giving birth either, just the part where the husband believed the ghost insemination story. That was my own loose string.

Weah96:
LOL, Ubenedictus is tugging at a loose string, not realizing that it is attached to a house of cards.

For thousands of years, the God supposedly rendered preferential treatment to one small tribe of humans, at the expense, often fatal expense, of everyone else. You didn't see any character flaws in that behavior, but this penal substitution business is the one paining you. LOL.

I didn't see anything wrong with virgins giving birth either, just the part where the husband believed the ghost insemination story. That was my own loose string.

Well, you ought to know better.
Religion is :
Make - belief,... as you go.

trustman:


[size=10pt]So what "atoning sacrifice" did Jesus Christ offer ?

himself, he gave himself as a sacrifice.

plaetton:
But penal substitution is essence of christian belief that Jesus died to save humankind.

not really!

Penal substutution is actually a new theory, rejected by orthodox Christians and most Catholic theologians. It portrays God as vindictive, a "pourer" of wrath. So no. Penal substitution is not the essence of Christianity Christian have been around for over a thousand year before there ever was a theory that say God was pouring his wrath on his innocent son so tht there will be no more wrath for a select few. I certainly do not believe Jesus went to hell fire was disfellowshiped from his father and man to burn in hell so a few elect gets saved.

That is an unjust God and i do not believe in such a God.

Bishop Anselm put it more elagantly when he wrote Adam comitted infinite sin against god, therefore man owed an infinite debt to God that could only be redeemed, not by finite sacrifices, but by infinite sacrifice, the sacrifice of the infinite one himself.

Anselm's theory implies that the sacrifice of Jesus was simply a celestial Banking transaction where the books just needed to be balanced.

I guess you gat bishop Anslems theory, though i think u may have it messed up, even at that it still isn't penal substitution. Anslem never taught that God got someone beaten because he was unhappy. Anslem did believe that Jesus gave glory to his father that satisfy for all sins of all humanity both past, present and future but to Anslem it had nothing to do with Jesus recieving our penalty.

There is a subtle difference.

Weah96:
LOL, Ubenedictus is tugging at a loose string, not realizing that it is attached to a house of cards.

For thousands of years, the God supposedly rendered preferential treatment to one small tribe of humans, at the expense, often fatal expense, of everyone else. You didn't see any character flaws in that behavior, but this penal substitution business is the one paining you. LOL.

I didn't see anything wrong with virgins giving birth either, just the part where the husband believed the ghost insemination story. That was my own loose string.

i actually liked your comment because I think you have great sense of humour, even though i don't think joking about other peoples beliefs is cool, anyway, I think you'll agree that believing a God that practices favourism is bad enough adding saddist and self hating to the list just makes it worse.

Besides, i do not believe God showed preferential treatment to the Isrealites, i have a pretty bad analogy for it, I'm sure you are aware that before a drug is brought to the open market it is first tried on a small controlled population, would you describe the doctors as been preferential for giving a few people his good drug while allowing others to die?
Well I wouldn't. he covenants before Jesus were preparatory, if you like call it trials drugs, an exibition that prepares the world for salvation, the "preferential treatment" started with a household, d guy d bible calls Noah, a generation with abraham and a nation with moses, those were all steps so that at the right time the whole world may be save through Christ.

It is a bad anology but i think it sticks for a time.

Ubenedictus:


i actually liked your comment because I think you have great sense of humour, even though i don't think joking about other peoples beliefs is cool, anyway, I think you'll agree that believing a God that practices favourism is bad enough adding saddist and self hating to the list just makes it worse.

Besides, i do not believe God showed preferential treatment to the Isrealites, i have a pretty bad analogy for it, I'm sure you are aware that before a drug is brought to the open market it is first tried on a small controlled population, would you describe the doctors as been preferential for giving a few people his good drug while allowing others to die?
Well I wouldn't. he covenants before Jesus were preparatory, if you like call it trials drugs, an exibition that prepares the world for salvation, the "preferential treatment" started with a household, d guy d bible calls Noah, a generation with abraham and a nation with moses, those were all steps so that at the right time the whole world may be save through Christ.

It is a bad anology but i think it sticks for a time.

You're quite intelligent. I believe you'll eventually figure the whole thing out.

Ubenedictus:


i actually liked your comment because I think you have great sense of humour, even though i don't think joking about other peoples beliefs is cool, anyway, I think you'll agree that believing a God that practices favourism is bad enough adding saddist and self hating to the list just makes it worse.

Besides, i do not believe God showed preferential treatment to the Isrealites, i have a pretty bad analogy for it, I'm sure you are aware that before a drug is brought to the open market it is first tried on a small controlled population, would you describe the doctors as been preferential for giving a few people his good drug while allowing others to die?
Well I wouldn't. he covenants before Jesus were preparatory, if you like call it trials drugs, an exibition that prepares the world for salvation, the "preferential treatment" started with a household, d guy d bible calls Noah, a generation with abraham and a nation with moses, those were all steps so that at the right time the whole world may be save through Christ.

It is a bad anology but i think it sticks for a time.

and this was exactly how i started... Don't worry you will realize all you seek soon enough

Ubenedictus:


himself, he gave himself as a sacrifice.

Q – What is an ‘Atoning sacrifice’?
A – A payment made (an amend made) for the sin offense against God.

Q – Why was an ‘atoning sacrifice’ necessary?
A – In order to appease God for the wrong done against him.

Q – What was the wrong done?
A – Mankind’s sin (act of disobedience) against God.

Q – How did Jesus become an atoning sacrifice?
A – Jesus Christ took upon himself the punishment for our sins.
God the father judged our sins in Christ’s body on the cross – 1 Peter 2:24 “He
himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live
for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been.”
He (Christ) made the payment for our sins on the cross – Isaiah 53: 6 “We all, like
sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid
on him the iniquity of us all.”
Titus 2:14 “ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify
for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.”
After Jesus Christ paid our debt in full on the cross he said “It is finished” (John
19:30a) before he died physically.
He was therefore substituted in our place to pay for or atone for man’s sin problem.
He died then as a substitute for us – Romans 5: 8 “But God demonstrates his own
love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
He did not die for his own sins.
He died (as a substitute) for the sins of others – mankind.
“He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all …” Romans 8:32a

Can a third person 'bail out' another who is in need of bail? Certainly 'Yes'
Would it cost such a one who bails another something? Definitely 'Yes'
That is the transaction done in Christ's substitutionary death.
Love motivated it. Grace made it a reality.

Permit me to break up your post so i can reply each point.

trustman:

Can a third person 'bail out' another who is in need of bail? Certainly 'Yes'
Would it cost such a one who bails another something? Definitely 'Yes'
That is the transaction done in Christ's substitutionary death.
Love motivated it. Grace made it a reality.

I agree that a third party can post bail for another, but i put it to you that a third party cannot be killed in place of the guilty, i put it to you that it is immoral for wrath to be poured on the innocent. God is no unjust, he can allow a third person pay another debt or even post bail, but it will still be injust to send Jesus to hell fire.

Ubenedictus:


Penal substition say that God didn't really forgive us our sins instead he took his son and punished his for all our sins, killed his son for all our sins and then sent him to hell fire for 3 day. It is the theory that says our salvation is in other words a work of divine injustice.

It is like saying your house dog bit your dad and instead to letting go and forgiving the dog, your father went and beat up you brothers for the sin of the dog. That is penal substitution, that someone was kill for another persons crimes.

It is unjust both to punish the innocent and to allow the guilty to go free, thus this theory is heavy suspect and may very well be the most popular heresy in christendom.



Before I go on I must state that I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ died FOR me and offered an atoning sacrifice for my sin that suffice for all sins! But I do not believe that God punished or penalise his son in place of me.

I believe penal substitution is against the nature of God and highly suspect for the following reason....

What you have admitted is that your god is unjust but you have issues accepting this point.

mmsen:



What you have admitted is that your god is unjust but you have issues accepting this point.

you have it upside down, my arguement is that penal substitution is not a Christian teaching, its origin is from the 16th century.

Put in other words, many believe wrongly that Jesus was penalised in their place, that teaching is relatively new and inconsistent with who God is.


I didn't claim the Christian God is unjust, I instead condemned the belief system that portrays him as such.

I am of the opinion you are intelligent enough to understand my post and will kindly request you don't misrepresent what I said.

Ubenedictus:



you have it upside down, my arguement is that penal substitution is not a Christian teaching, its origin is from the 16th century.

Put in other words, many believe wrongly that Jesus was penalised in their place, that teaching is relatively new and inconsistent with who God is.


I didn't claim the Christian God is unjust, I instead condemned the belief system that portrays him as such.

I am of the opinion you are intelligent enough to understand my post and will kindly request you don't misrepresent what I said.

If your brother stabs me and you are jailed as a result is that just?


1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Interesting. . .

What then was the purpose of Jesus Christ on earth.

Ubenedictus:



you have it upside down, my arguement is that penal substitution is not a Christian teaching, its origin is from the 16th century.

Put in other words, many believe wrongly that Jesus was penalised in their place, that teaching is relatively new and inconsistent with who God is.


I didn't claim the Christian God is unjust, I instead condemned the belief system that portrays him as such.

I am of the opinion you are intelligent enough to understand my post and will kindly request you don't misrepresent what I said.

I was not really sure if you had finished responding to my last submission. However look at the following issues.

First you make this statement:

Before I go on I must state that I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ died FOR me and offered an atoning sacrifice for my sin that suffice for all sins! But I do not believe that God punished or penalise his son in place of me.

And then this:

himself, he gave himself as a sacrifice.

[/quote]
What is your understanding of the word ‘sacrifice’?
What is your explanation of ‘he gave himself as a sacrifice’?
What do you understand by your words – ‘I believe that Jesus Christ died FOR me’?

Maybe when these are clarified you’ll get a better picture.

Laughing at the OP in 3D. Abi Obadiah777 and\sukkot don hack your username ni? . You can't even stand scriptural verses when it stares at you in your face.

Ubenedictus:
Penal substitution (also called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed within the Reformed tradition (and the Lutheran tradition, to a lesser degree). It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins of men. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment.

Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ,
to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.

To remove the big english, penal substitution is the doctrine preached on nl by those who claim that God that God couldn't forgive us our sins without first punishing his own son.

Penal substition say that God didn't really forgive us our sins instead he took his son and punished his for all our sins, killed his son for all our sins and then sent him to hell fire for 3 day. It is the theory that says our salvation is in other words a work of divine injustice.

It is like saying your house dog bit your dad and instead to letting go and forgiving the dog, your father went and beat up you brothers for the sin of the dog. That is penal substitution, that someone was kill for another persons crimes.

It is unjust both to punish the innocent and to allow the guilty to go free, thus this theory is heavy suspect and may very well be the most popular heresy in christendom.

Before I go on I must state that I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ died FOR me and offered an atoning sacrifice for my sin that suffice for all sins! But I do not believe that God punished or penalise his son in place of me.

I believe penal substitution is against the nature of God and highly suspect for the following reason....

You contradicted yourself in the emboldened text. To claim you believe Jesus died FOR you but you don't believe God punished His son in your place is contradictory.

The wages of sin is death, so if Jesus died FOR US, it means He took upon Himself the wages of our sin. It means We did the crime and Jesus did the time.

Isaiah 53v6 -All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him (Jesus) the iniquity of us all.

Can you see this? The Father laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all. So our sin and the attending consequence (separation from God) and condemnation (death) was laid on Jesus.

And what is unjust or wrong about that? If a child broke the windscreen of the neighbours car and the father or brother paid for the damages or replaced the windscreen, what's wrong with that?

Penal substitution is taking responsibility for the consequences (damages and wages) of someone else' actions. The only difference is that in our case, that wage is death.

Jesus took our sin and iniquity; and in doing that, He also took the consequence and condemnation that accrued to the sin. This is a lovestory. Its strange you see it as injustice.

John 15v13 -Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Romans 5v8 But God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Isaiah 53v5 -But He was wounded for our transgression, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.

God bless.

I am aware that I left large portions of your post unanswered, for some reason my brower didn't post some of the replies and I ended up losing the post.

trustman:

I was not really sure if you had finished responding to my last submission. However look at the following issues.

First you make this statement:


And then this:

What is your understanding of the word ‘sacrifice’?
What is your explanation of ‘he gave himself as a sacrifice’?
What do you understand by your words – ‘I believe that Jesus Christ died FOR me’?

Maybe when these are clarified you’ll get a better picture.

Yes, I believe that is the meat of the matter, the issue of sacrifice. For you a sacrifice involves punishing an innocent for me it means something a bit different. Please allow me to go back and answer your post and you'll see why Christ offers a sacrifice but isn't a vehicle of wrath.

Goshen360:
Laughing at the OP in 3D. Abi Obadiah777 and\sukkot don hack your username ni? . You can't even stand scriptural verses when it stares at you in your face.

Goshen how are you doing?

Nobody hacked by account, I have not responded to the passages directed at me, not because I do not have a response to them but because of some factors that keep me from doing so.

trustman:


Q – What is an ‘Atoning sacrifice’?
A – A payment made (an amend made) for the sin offense against God.

Q – Why was an ‘atoning sacrifice’ necessary?
A – In order to appease God for the wrong done against him.

Q – What was the wrong done?
A – Mankind’s sin (act of disobedience) against God.

I love the way you define atoning sacrifice, you say it is a payment made to appease God for sins!

I agree to a good extent, but I prefer to be very specific when I use word in discussing doctrines, so i'll go futher and say, it is an offering of something in order to make amends for a wong done.

Put simply, I agree with your definition of atoning but you seem to think atonement happen only when punishment, wrath and discontent is transfered to the innocent, I on the other hand think atonement happens not neccessarily when another takes the just wrath of wrong doings but when the said wrath is averted without been poured. My position is that God the father didn't pour wrath on his son instead his son gave him a "sweet smelling offering" (sacrifice), that averted the wrath.

Please allow me to discuss the word atonement using scriptures.

Ubenedictus:


I love the way you define atoning sacrifice, you say it is a payment made to appease God for sins!

I agree to a good extent, but I prefer to be very specific when I use word in discussing doctrines, so i'll go futher and say, it is an offering of something in order to make amends for a wong done.

Put simply, I agree with your definition of atoning but you seem to think atonement happen only when punishment, wrath and discontent is transfered to the innocent, I on the other hand think atonement happens not neccessarily when another takes the just wrath of wrong doings but when the said wrath is averted without been poured. My position is that God the father didn't pour wrath on his son instead his son gave him a "sweet smelling offering" (sacrifice), that averted the wrath.

Please allow me to discuss the word atonement using scriptures.

@bolded.. please bro are you saying that torture and murder of jesus was actually a sweet smelling sacrifice to yahweh and then made him forgo his wrath

The Hebrew term "kaphar" (H3722) means to 'make atonement', 'propitiate', 'cover over [sin]', 'cleanse', etc, and is used about 90 times in the Old Testament (mostly in regards to sacrifices, which we would expect). I will highlight some very
clear examples of atonement/propitiation taking place in the Old Testament (where
"kaphar" appears) that doesn't involve a transfer of punishment at all, but rather a 'turning away of wrath' all together.


Genesis 32:20 [Jacob] thought, "I may appease him [Esau] with the present that goes ahead of me, and afterward I shall see his face. Perhaps he will accept me."

The account of Genesis 32:13-21 is of Jacob reuniting with his brother Esau. For those who know the infamous past between the two, they will know the brothers were not on good terms. In this case, Jacob planned to appease ('atone') his brothers wrath against him by offering him a gift. In no sense was Jacob going to deflect his brother's wrath onto an innocent third-party.

Here we see that to atone isn't necessarily deflecting wrath on the innocent but rather offering something pleasing to the aggrieved.


Exodus 30:15-16 "When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a RANSOM for his life to the LORD when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. ... The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the LORD’s offering to make atonement for your lives."

Here, Moses is given instructions (Exodus 30:11-16) for a 'census tax' on the Israelites. What is especially interesting is that this 'atonement' is described in terms of a "ransom" ( H3724 "kopher," which is very similar to the Hebrew word for "atonement". This is significant because Christ's Life is frequently described in terms of 'ransom' and 'redemption' (both terms refer to 'buying back' something at a price). Here the ransom/atonement protects them from experiencing a plague due to God's wrath against disobedience. But nothing here suggests wrath is deflected on a substitute.

Instead what we see is that the atonement is a payment that avert wrath.

Exodus 32:30 The next day Moses said to the people, "You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."

Psalm 106:19-23 They made a calf in Horeb and worshiped a metal image. ... Therefore he [God] said he would destroy them had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them.

Deut 9:13-29 You had made yourselves a golden calf. ... Then I
[Moses] lay prostrate before the LORD as before, forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all the sin that you had committed, in doing what was evil in the sight of the LORD to provoke him to anger. For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure that the LORD bore against you, so that he was ready to destroy you. But the LORD listened to me that time also.

Exodus 32 describes the infamous Golden Calf story, which is retold at various other times in Scripture because of it's great scandal and sin. Clearly, the Lord listened to
Moses' intercession and penance, making atonement for them and sparing the entire nation from total annihilation. This is a far cry from God redirecting His wrath onto a substitute, namely Moses himself.

Instead wrath is avered atonement accomplish by the prayers of intercession offered by moses.

Numbers 16:41-50 Moses said to
Aaron, "Take your censer, and put fire on it from off the altar and lay incense on it and carry it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone out from the LORD; the plague has begun." So Aaron took it as Moses said and ran into the midst of the assembly. And behold, the plague had already begun among the people. And he put on the incense and made atonement for the people. And he stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was stopped.


This is another infamous story of Korah's Rebellion, and here the Israelites are grumbling against Moses and God, which resulted in a plague across their camp. As with the previous examples, we see the theme of intercession (through good works, like incense) for the sinners, appeasing/propitiating God's wrath, and not an innocent party taking the fall.

Numbers 25:1-13 "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel , in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. 12Therefore say, 'Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, 13and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel.'"

Psalm 106:30-31 Then Phinehas
stood up and intervened, and the plague was stayed. And that [good work] was counted to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever.

Again I submit that by a good deed wrath is averted not deflected to a third party.