Jesus is perfect and Holy, without sin, but the wrath of God was taken out on Jesus when He died and paid for our sins, so when our sins went to Jesus, was Jesus a sinner at that time? How can one explain this
This has to do with atonement which is a huge topic.
If Jesus paid for our sins 100%, what is there for God to forgive? It is not just to forgive a debt and also have to pay the debt.
There are two things a Loving parent needs to do with a rebellious disobedient child and that is Lovingly forgive them and lovingly
discipline them if at all possible.
Where in scripture (other than the way you are interpreting Christ atonement sacrifice) is “for” translated “in place of”?
The Penal Substitution theory is read into the frequent Scriptural statements that Christ died "for" us. Many Christians read the words "for us" and mentally add "as our substitute" or “instead of”. Though that is one of the possible meanings of the preposition "for," however, we must remember that the preposition can be used in more than one way and “instead of” = for never has to be translated that way.
So it is with the Greek prepositions. There are many Greek words in this context which we translate with the English word "for." They include peri (which means "about" or "concerning"), dia ("because of" or "on account of"), and by far the most common, huper ("for," "on behalf of," or "for the sake of").
None of these prepositions necessarily invokes the meaning "in the place of." Hence the exact relationship between Christ's death and our salvation is not so clearly conveyed in any of these verses. That Jesus died "on account of" us and our sins is clear, but the Greek words translated "for" do not of themselves spell out a doctrine of Atonement.
Prepositions in any language tend to be fluid. Like the English word "for," the Greek words translated "for" can bear more than one meaning and could have changed over time. Hence they could imply substitution. My point is that the prepositions neither make nor break the case for Satisfaction/Penal Substitution. Would you agree it is unwise to build any doctrine solely on the meaning of a preposition?
That having been said, there is a fourth preposition translated "for" in these verses which does usually imply substitution. That word is anti and it normally means "in place of," though it can take on the meaning of huper also. The term is used solely in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, verses. There Jesus' death is described as being an actual ransom payment (and not like a ransom payment), so a word normally implying (in exchange) would be natural. However, it is telling that every other verse teaching that Jesus died "for" us leans toward more ambiguous terms.
Substitution implies an "either/or"; participation implies a "both/and." Substitution would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore I don't have to"; participation would have me say, "Jesus died, therefore I must also." Which is more Scriptural? Consider Romans 6:1-14.
This is not to say that Satisfaction/Penal Substitution has no positive features. Indeed, it emphasizes the cross and the uniqueness of Christ's death. However, I fear it "proves too much" by negating God's forgiveness and excluding other aspects of the Atonement. Other theories of the Atonement have been articulated to take these other elements more seriously, but they too have problems.
(PS) avoids addressing the fact Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder is described as a ransom payment (not even like a ransom payment, but is an actual ransom payment):
Matthew 20:28 even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:45 For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
1 Peter 1:18 You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,
Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
Revelation 5:9 and they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou waste slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.
If God is Love, how could God have a problem forgiving people? The reason given for “penal substitution” is God cannot forgive us without Jesus being our substitute, but that makes God out to having a problem, lacking in Love someway, and being almost blood thirsty.
What is the relationship between “forgiveness” and punishment of the individual for a transgression? (most theories of atonement like to talk about “sin” needing punishment yet sin cannot be “punished”, only people can be punished.)
Would the perfect parent (the one you would like to be and be like God) see to the punishment or discipline of his/her children in order to have the Love to forgive those children?
The best parent does not “punish” (discipline) their children in order for the parent to have the love to forgive, they punish (discipline with time out or something) their children for the benefit that discipline provides?
God does not have a “problem” forgiving us, but we need to be disciplined somehow in order to obtain the benefits from being disciplined. So God somehow need to see to our discipline for our transgressions without killing us and yet be fair, just and show us His concern/Love.
What are the “benefits” to being fairly (disciplined) for our transgressions?
Answers:
Deterrent for the person being disciplined and others aware of the discipline which keeps them from repeating the action.
It places the value on the transgression (the greater severity to the disciplining the greater the transgression), sometimes we do not know how much pain it has caused until we know the how we will be disciplined for the transgression.
It shows fairness and justice, the parent/judge needs to be consistent and we want to know we have a fair and just parent/judge.
It is a way to put the transgression behind us, since we have done the time for the crime.
It also should strength and improves the relationship between the parent and the child it is a teaching moment.
We know wonderful parent see to the discipline of the children they Love if at all possible, so if our parents do not discipline us, we should rightfully question their love/concern for us.
Just as the father wanted his sons to be like himself in the prodigal son story, God wants us to choose to humbly accept His Love and become like He is. The only initial way for humans to obtain Godly type Love is as a free gift automatically “...He that is forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt will automatically have an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love)”. That Love can later grow with use, but cannot be developed independently or instinctively possessed by the individual. Thus the need for sin and likely alternatives on earth (the perceived pleasures of sin).
In one since there is “limited” atonement since not everyone’s’ sins are atoned for and in another since the atonement sacrifice was made for every sinner so the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for all.
The way to reconcile these two truths is in the understanding (definition) of “atonement”.
The Jews, especially the men, Jesus and lots of the New Testament was directly addressing, had direct individual experience with atonement through going through the atonement process for unintentional (minor) sins. God provided that wonderful education which we can only read about in Lev. 5 and try to imagine the experience for ourselves. We would also realize if we have to go through all this for “minor” (unintentional sins) than rebellious disobedience sins would require something unbelievably greater.
First off: the atonement sacrifice itself (Christ going to the cross) does not complete the atonement process since there is a part the sinner plays (again this would be understood best by those Jews who had experienced the atonement process for unintentional sins). Jesus and God have both done their part in the atonement process, but the individual sinner has to complete their part or atonement is not completed and if atonement is not completed the forgiveness is not assured. (God’s forgiveness for minor (unintentional sins) came after the correct completion of the atonement process (Lev. 5)).
Secondly: The part the sinner plays are nothing: worthy of anything, righteous, deserving of anything, or honorable. It is more like criminal, horrible and disgraceful, but necessary.
Christ Crucified is described by Paul, Peter, Jesus, John and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment (it is not even said to be like a ransom payment, but it was a ransom payment).
I find the ransom description more than just an analogy and an excellent fit and I am not talking about the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”
(The “Ransom Theory of Atonement” has God paying satan the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ but: Does God owe Satan anything? Is there some cosmic “law” saying you have to pay the kidnapper? Would it not be wrong for God to pay satan, if God could just as easily and safely take back His children without paying satan?)
Would a ransom as those in the first century might understand it (it was well known Caesura at 21 had been kidnapped and a ransom paid for him) included the following elements:
1. Someone other than the captive paying the ransom.
2. The payment is a huge sacrificial payment for the payer, who would personally prefer not to pay.
3. Since those that come to God must come as children, it is the children of God that go to the Father.
4. The payer cannot safely or for some other reason get his children any other way than making the payment.
5. The kidnapper is totally undeserving.
6. The kidnapper can accept or reject the payment.
We can agree on most of the parts with the atonement process being just like a ransom experience: The children of God be held out of the kingdom; Deity making the huge sacrificial payment; Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder on the cross being the payment; and the freedom given the child to enter the kingdom after the ransom is paid. But who is this unworthy kidnapper God will pay to release His child.
We can only come to our Father as children, so who is keeping the nonbeliever in the unbelieving state (who is this kidnapper)?
There is the one ransom, but could there be many unworthy kidnappers holding the children of God back?
Does not the nonbeliever himself hold the potential child of God (within them) back from the kingdom?
If the kidnapper does accept the payment has he/she done something worthy or virtually criminal?
You do have a substitute at the cross, standing in for you, but is it those that cried crucify him, the religious leaders, the Roman soldiers, one of the thieves, or maybe one of the disciples who ran away. To say: “Christ took my place” is extremely bold on your part, although you can be crucified “with” Christ like a deserving thief and join Christ in paradise.
You do good to realize someone is standing in for you at the cross, but is it one of those who yelled “Crucify Him”, maybe one of the thieves, a Roman soldier, a Pharisee, or one of the disciples who ran away, but how bold do you have to be to say: “Christ was taking my place?” Are you so committed as to say: “I would stay on the cross when you could leave”?
Look at a real “Christ crucified” sermon of Peter Acts 2 and he says nothing about Christ taking our place on the cross.
That is just an introduction to think about.