Articles home page

"Christus Victor" vs. "Penal Substitutionary Atonement"

(Garth D. Wiebe, April 2015)

Although perhaps a bit of an oversimplification, "Christus Victor" is a doctrine that focuses, often exclusively, on the victory that Christ achieved over the devil on our behalf.  "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" is a doctrine that focuses, often exclusively, on Jesus taking the penalty for our sins, being punished as a substitution in place of us being punished.

This is usually presented as opposing views, an either-or proposition, which is really not necessary, because the scriptures affirm both.  Those who want to focus on victory over the devil and don't want to talk about the sin problem will exclusively claim the former, whereas those who want to focus on the sin problem and don't want to talk about the victory over the devil will exclusively claim the latter.

The CV extremist emphasizes victory and dominion over the devil to the exclusion of the responsibility, guilt, and payment of sins, God's "passionate indignation" even now, and the "wrath of God to come," leaving people in bondage to sin, which they now don't give much thought to committing or allowing, since it doesn't much matter to them anymore.

The PSA extremist emphasizes the responsibility, guilt, and payment of sins, God's "passionate indignation" even now, and the "wrath of God to come," to the exclusion of the victory and dominion over the devil, leaving people in bondage to the devil and his works, including bondage to fear over the threat of future guilt if they should slip up and commit or allow a sin.

So, it is not one vs. the other; it is both, harmonized.  True freedom can only be had in the harmony.

An analogy would be if we go to the scriptures and try to decide whether Jesus was man or God, human or divine.  One camp could state that he was a man, human only, and discount any scripture that says he is divine. Another camp could state that he was God, and try to discount any scripture that says he was ever human.  But it is not one vs. the other, but both, harmonized.

Are the scriptures God-breathed (to the exclusion of man), or man-breathed (to the exclusion of God)?  How should we argue that one?  But it is 100% both.  2 Pet 1:20-21 harmonizes that one well in just two verses.

The CV vs. PSA viewpoints can be easily searched on the web; I am not going to re-hash them here.  But I noticed some issues that I have not found adequately addressed, including a few translation problems, so this article will address these.

*λυτρ* based on "to loose," not "ransom"

The word "ransom" is tied to the Old Covenant "blood sacrifice" of Jesus, which CV extremists will not understand (or will not want to).  It is "liberation" by "substitution."

λυω (Strong's G3089, "luO") is the verb "loose."  That's "loose" as in to cause something that is bound to be freed, not "loosened," as if you might "loosen" something that was too tight.

λυτρον (Srong's G3083, "lutron") is a "loose-ing thing (i.e. entity)."  λυτροω (Strong's G3084, "lutroO") is the verb form of that, which is to cause to be loosed with a "loose-ing" thing.  λυτροσις (Strong's G3085, "lutrosis") is the noun form of that, which is a loose-ing by the loose-ing thing.  λυτρωτης (Strong's G3086, "lutrOtes") is a loose-er person, i.e. a person who looses.

Those words don't have perfect English equivalents, so you will see the use of variations of words like "redeem" and "deliver" assigned to them.  "Liberate/liberation/liberator" (the idea of freeing something that was bound) might have been better words to use in translation.  But to read it in the Koine Greek sense, you have to understand that they all are related to the word "loose."  If you do a computer search for *λυτρ* (using * as a wildcard), you will come up with 20 instances, not just 3 (as in KJV "ransom"), including those that just add the prefix απο (Strong's G575, "apo"), which is a preposition meaning "off/from," or αντι (Strong's G473, "anti") which means "opposite/instead" or "in place of," which would be one thing substituted for another.  The sense of "ransom" (the three KJV instances of the English word) is the combination of αντι + λυτρον = "liberate in place of" or "liberate in the stead of," so you see that even there the sense is substitutionary, and not simply paying somebody some money that is demanded by him.

The 20 references are Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45, Luke 1:68, 2:38, 21:28, 24:21, Acts 7:35, Rom 3:24, 8:23, 1 Cor 1:30, Eph 1:7, 1:14, 4:30, Col 1:14, 1 Tim 2:6, Tit 2:14, Heb 9:12, 9:15, 11:35, 1 Pet 1:18.

For example, the following are the three places where the word "ransom" occurs in the KJV (New Testament):

Matt 20:28  As even the Son of Man comes not to be served, but to serve and to give his life λυτρον αντι many

Mark 10:45  For also the Son of Man comes not to be served, but to serve and to give his life λυτρον αντι many
In these two verses, λυτρον αντι is "loose-er in-place-of," i.e. "a means of liberation substituting for"

The two words can also be found combined into one (αντι-λυτρον) as a single, compound word:

1 Tim 2:6  the one giving himself αντιλυτρον over all
So, you see that it all relates to something bound getting set free, which is what Jesus did, and it was substitutionary.


By His Blood.

Hyper-literally, Heb 9:12-15,

12 not-yet through blood of he-goats and of cattle, yet through of-the own blood he-into-came once into the holies eternal, finding/getting λυτρωσιν [the loose-ing by the loose-ing thing].

13 For if the blood of bulls and of he-goats and ashes of heifer sprinkling the having been contaminated is holy-izing toward the cleanness of the flesh,

14 how-much rather the blood of the anointed [Christ] who through eternal Spirit himself toward-carries [i.e. offers] flawless to the God, will be cleansing the conscience of you from dead works into the to serve the living God

15 and through this of new covenant he is mediator, which-how of death becoming into απο-λυτρωσιν [the loose-ing "απο" (off/from), by the loose-ing thing] of-the upon the prior covenant of transgressions, the having-been called may be getting of the having-allotment/inheritance.

and 1 Pet 1:18-19,
18 having perceived that not to corruptible silver or gold ελυτρωθητε ["you are loosed with the loose-ing thing"] out of the vain/useless over-turn of you, of father-traditional,

19 but to precious blood as of flawless and unspotted lamb, of Christ,

Those hyper-literal translations are really awkward, because I let it flow pretty much as in Koine Greek, rather than English, so that you can see how the writer was expressing it, rather than the translator interpreting that into proper English grammar and flow.

But coming back around to the question of CV "ransom," you can see that the word translated in the KJV in only three instances as "ransom" is that __λυτρ__ word, which you can now see is tied in to the blood sacrifice of the Old Covenant in other uses of the same word.  Therefore, the "ransom," was a "blood ransom."  But, again, "ransom" is a loaded term that should probably not be used, because it conjures up the thought of "give the criminal the money he demands," and there is no "criminal" directly implied by the word (in fact, rather, we are the criminals who are pardoned, and we cannot excuse ourselves with, "The devil made me do it.")  It is therefore clear that our sins are paid for by his blood (and the "life is in the blood" [Lev 17:11], so he paid for our sins with his life), which is what we are calling the substitutionary atonement.  So, "substitutionary atonement" is both biblical and tied in to the KJV "ransom" word.

Then, conversely, if the _λυτρ_ words were to be consistently translated "ransom," then every other instance would need to be, too.  In this case, for example, when Stephen lectures the Sanhedren in Acts 7, he calls Moses a λυτρωτην (Strong's G3086) in verse 35. Did Moses "ransom" Israel?  No.  He was a "liberator."  Moses "loosed" Israel from bondage to Egypt.

"Wrath": οργη vs. θυμος

When considering the idea of "wrath," there are a couple of words to look up.  One is the noun/verb/adjective οργη/οργιζω/οργιλος (Strong's G3709/G3710/G3711, "orge/orgizo/orgilos"), which I would render "passionate indignation."  Whatever you call it, it is an emotion, not an action (which "wrath" often implies).  It is more like "I'm angry because of what you have done."  The other word is the noun/verb θυμος/θυμοω (Strong's G2372/G2373, "thumou/thumoO"), which is "fury" or "rage," still an emotion, but now it's more like, "I'm angry and you are going to experience the consequences of it."

For the sense of "wrath" the second word (θυμος) is the better fit.

For example, in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15), the older son is οργισθη "passionately indignant" about the younger son getting celebrated, which cannot be construed as "wrath."  Because of his "οργη," he was not willing to enter the house.

We are told to οργιζεσθε "be passionately indignant" and "do not be sinning," not letting the sun go down upon the παρα-οργισμω ("para-orgismo") "passionate indignation being near/beside" us in Eph 4:26, then in verse 31 it says to let all bitterness and θυμος and οργη be being taken away from us, together with every evil.

In John 3:36, the οργη "passionate indignation" is μενει (Strong's G3306, "menei") "remaining" (present tense) on those who are "stubborn" and do not believe.  Since that is present tense, this "passionate indignation" is upon unbelievers right now.  Rom 1:18 also says it is αποκαλυπτεται ("apokaluptetai," Strong's G601) "being revealed" (present tense) from heaven "upon all" the people spoken about in Romans 1:18 on.

So, you have to harmonize this "passionate indignation" with the practical fact and consequences of God's favor, or grace, happening right now, and "wrath" is probably not the best word to use.

On the other hand, for example, the people in the synagogue in Nazareth were filled with θυμου "fury/rage" at Jesus, cast him out of the city, and took him to the brow of the hill to throw him down, in Luke 4.  Demetrius the Ephesian got the people of that city filled with θυμου "fury/rage" and they rioted in Acts 19.  In Revelation the "fury/rage" word is used many times, including Rev 15:1, where it speaks of the last seven calamities, in which are ετελεσθη ("etelesthe," Strong's G5055) finished/consummated/completed (aorist tense) the θυμος "fury/rage" of God. Note the word τετελεσται ("tetelestai," Strong's G5055) "it has been finished/consummated/completed" (perfect tense) is also spoken by Jesus on the cross, concerning what he accomplished.

Granted, there is some overlap in usage, but θυμος is the stronger word, and that they are distinct is shown by the several places where both words are used together.

This is a big issue that CV extremists are poking at, the "angry/monster God" caricature, so we need to define this issue of "wrath" carefully.  Note that in the end analysis they cannot be let to escape that there is yet a "wrath of God to come," which could not be if it was only "Christus Victor," the victory of Jesus, and not also a "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" for the many to reject, causing them to remain under judgment, leading to the wrath of God to come, not because Jesus didn't pay for all sins, but because they reject and nullify that same Word of God by choosing not to believe it.  And that last statement keeps the whole "salvation" issue a purely faith proposition, and not one of works or lack of God's favor.

What is "propitiation"?

This has become such a loaded, theological term, that my first inclination is to say, "Let's just throw out the English word in favor of using simpler terminology that everyone can understand at face value."

First, let's look up the word in the English dictionary:

verb: propitiate; 3rd person present: propitiates; past tense: propitiated; past participle: propitiated; gerund or present participle: propitiating

win or regain the favor of (a god, spirit, or person) by doing something that pleases them. "the pagans thought it was important to propitiate the gods with sacrifices" synonyms:appease, placate, mollify, pacify, make peace with, conciliate, make amends to, soothe, calm "my attempts to propitiate you are useless" antonyms:provoke
late 16th century: from Latin propitiat- ‘made favorable,’ from the verb propitiare, from propitius ‘favorable, gracious’ (see propitious).
The base Koine Greek word ιλαρος (Strong's G2431, "[h]ilaros) means "gleeful" or "merry," and is where we get the English word "hilarious" (

The base Koine Greek word is used so few times in the New Testament that I can just list all ten of them here:

Matt 16:22 "Peter begins to be rebuking to same, saying, 'ιλεως to you, Lord.  No, not shall this be to you!'

Luke 18:13 "...saying 'God ιλασθητι [verb, aorist imperative] to me, the sinner."

Rom 3:25 "...whom God before-placed ιλαστηριον through the faith in his blood..."

Rom 12:8 [among a list of χαρισματα, "grace-effects" in the "one body, yet members of one another"] "...the one being merciful, in ιλαροτητι."

2 Cor 9:7 "...for God is loving a ιλαρον giver."

Heb 2:17 "...into the ιλασκεσθαι [verb infinitive, "to be ____"] the sins of the people"

Heb 8:12 "that ιλεως I shall be to the un-justnesses of same, and the sins of same, and the lawlessnesses of same..."

Heb 9:5 "...the cheribum of glory, overshadowing the ιλαστηριον concerning which..."

1 John 2:2 " he is ιλασμος concerning our sins..."

1 John 4:10 "...his Son, ιλασμον concerning our sins."

The significant connection is to the Septuagint, the Koine Greek translation in use in New Testament times, from which many Old Testament scriptures are quoted in the New Testamant, especially by the apostle Paul, and it has the word in numerous places.  It is a base word the Septuagint translation uses in connection with "forgiveness," "sin offering," and "mercy seat," among others.

So, there is a Hebrew-to-Greek Old Testament translation phenomenon to take into account.

Here are the Old Testament LXX references with the New Testament (from The Apostolic Bible Polyglot):

ιλαρος (Strong's G2431, "[h]ilaros") "happy":  Prov 19:12, 22:8, 2 Cor 9:7

ιλαροτης (Strong's G2432, "[h]ilarotes") "happiness":  Prov 18:22, Rom 12:8

ιλαρυνω (not in Strong's, "[h]ilaruno"), verb "make happy":  Psalm 104:15

ιλαρως (not in Strong's, "[h]ilaros"), adverb "happily":  Job 22:26

ιλασκομαι (Strong's G2433, "[h]ilaskomai") conciliate, propitiate, atone; to be gracious, deal kindly:  Ex 32:14, 2 Kings 5:18, 24:4, 2 Chron 6:30, Ps 25:11, 65:3, 78:38, 79.9, Lam 3:42, Dan 9:19, Luke 18:13, Heb 2:17

ιλασμος (Strong's G2434, "[h]ilasmos") a reconciliation, an atonement:  Num 5:8, Ps 130:4, Eze 44:27, Dan 9:9, Amos 8:14, 1 John 2:2, 4:10

ιλαστηριον (Strong's G2435, "[h]ilasterion") the lid of the ark of the covenant, and expiatory sacrifice:  Ex 25:17-19,20, 21:22, 31:7, 35:12, 37:6-8,9, 40:20, Lev 16:2,13,14,15, Num 7:89, 1 Chron 28:11, Ezek 43:14,17,20, Amos 9:1, Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5

ιλεως (Strong's G2436, "[h]ileos") kindness, gentle; propitious:  Gen 43:23, Ex 32:12, Num 14:19,20, Deut 21:8, 1 Sam 14:45, 2 Sam 23:17, 1 Kings 8:30,34,36,39,50, 1 Chron 11:19, 2 Cron 6:21,25,27,39, 7:14, Isa 54:10, Jer 5:1,7, 31:34, 36:3, 50:20, Amos 7:2, Matt 16:22, Heb 8:12

PSA extremism:  "God's wrath poured out on Jesus"?

Jesus shed his blood for our sins, not his brutalized body for our sins.  Most of the evangelical world does not understand that but some of us do.

The sacrificial lambs and other animals of the Old Covenant and other places in the Old Testament were not tortured.  Their blood was let to run out and they died a humane death.

God's "wrath" was not poured out on Jesus.  God's "justice" was "poured out" on Jesus, (if you could call it "poured,") satisfied by the blood of Jesus for our sins.

Now, the "wrath" (more properly, οργη, Strong's G3709, "orge," "passionate indignation") of God is satisfied and appeased by the blood of Jesus, yes.  For those who choose not to believe the gospel, there is a coming judgment and wrath of God to come, because they have rejected the Word of God.  But we are exempt from that by faith in His Blood.

It was the "wrath" of the devil unwittingly brutalizing Jesus while the Jews were unwittingly performing the ultimate Passover Lamb sacrifice, even as Caiaphas himself unwittingly prophesied in John 11:49-53.  Now our afflictions are paid for, God's justice is satisfied, and the devil is done and defeated, without a thing he can say about it, either in accusation or affliction.

If you go to the extreme of saying that God "poured out His wrath on Jesus," then the atonement for our afflictions in his body is negated, because we are back to the blood-plus-body both paying for our sins, meaning that he was scourged and otherwise brutalized for our sins, and so on, a common error of traditional evangelicalism that needs to be corrected.

A good test to see how a New Testament word correlates to the Old Testament is to find a place where the New Testament quotes the Old Testament.  Such is with Hebrews 8:12 quoting Jeremiah 31:34.

Hebrews 8:12 (quoting Jeremiah, word for word from the Septuagint):

...οτι ιλεως εσομαι ταις αδικιαις αυτων...
Septuagint Jer 38:34 (corresponds to Hebrew Masoretic 31:34):
...οτι ιλεως εσομαι ταις αδικιαις αυτων...
Transliterated into our Roman/Latin font:
...[h]oti [h]ileOs esomai tais adikiais autOn...
Interlinear translation:
...that propitious [Strong's G2436] I-will-be to-the unjustnesses of-same...
This corresponds to the Hebrew (Jer 31:34):
כי אסלח לעונם ולחטאתם לא אזכר עוד
for I-will-forgive [Strong's H5545] their-iniquity and-their-sin not do-I-will-remember more
Oops!  What happened?  "Propitious" in the New Testament corresponds to "forgiveness" in the Old Testament.

And what of the word "propitiatory shelter" that occurs a hundred-something times in the Old Testament?  That is Strong's H3722 and related words, up to H3727.  Well, that's about coverings, shelters.

So much for the "wrath of God" being associated with that word.

Again, God is not fundamentally a "wrathful" God.  He is a God of both "grace/favor" and yet one of "justice."  His "justice" was "poured out on Jesus" (again, "poured out" is a bad choice of words here) by the shedding of His blood for the remission of our sins, not his "wrath."

Let's be clear:  The wrath of God was upon all mankind because of man's sin.  Apart from what Jesus did, we would all end up in hell, being tormented forever, because we were guilty of of sins that we committed, out of the depravity of our intentions.  This is the point CV extremists conveniently avoid.  Rather, Jesus died for our sins, blood "instead of" blood, life "instead" of life.  That's the αντι (Strong's G473, "anti") part, which means "opposite/instead/in-place-of" that CV extremists miss when they make up their exclusive "ransom" doctrine out of the three KJV "ransom" words.

The point is that the "wrath" of God (οργη, Strong's G3709, "orge," "passionate indignation") is "satisfied" by Jesus' "blood," and therefore, his "life."

So, Jesus is "penalized," "substituting" "in our place" in the "atonement" ("P-S-A").  The distinction to make is that it isn't because of an "angry God" who was "angry at Jesus" and was going to "pour out his wrath" upon his own son.  It is like any just judge in a courtroom.  The judge does not act out of anger but out of justice.  Since the verdict is "guilty," he issues the just penalty, which in this case is the death penalty.  In our case, we were guilty, and Jesus stepped in and took our place.  But no just judge in a civilized society says, "Death is too good for him.  He must be tortured first."

That brings us to the atonement of Jesus.  It is the blood of Jesus shed for the remission of our sins.  It is his body broken for our afflictions.

On the point of "crucifixion," this was torture.  Again, the Old Testament Passover lamb was not scorned, mocked, beaten, scourged, or crucified.  There was no hatred toward the lamb.  It was innocent.  It was not ever treated as a "wicked animal." The passover sacrifice was to remind them how the angel of death "passed over" their houses in Egypt that had the blood on the door posts.  Little did they know, it pointed to the actual "Lamb of God, the one lifting away the sin of the world" (John 1:29) by the blood of Jesus.

So, that's why the point that there was no "hatred" toward Jesus by God.  All we hear in scripture is "this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matt 3:17, 17:5, Mark 1:11, 2 Pet 1:17).  The "hatred" was by men and the devil, and the brutalization of Jesus was by men and the devil.

So again, that's what's wrong with the "wrath of God poured out on Jesus" idea.  Rather, the blood/life "αντι" blood/life is the penal substitution that saves us from the wrath of God to come.

And then with "wrath," as I made sure to distinguish, the οργη "passionate indignation" of God concerning sin and unbelief exists now.

2 Pet 3:9 God μακροθυμει "is being patient" (present tense) εις ημας "into us," μη "not" βουλομενος "intending" (present tense) τινας "any" απολεσθαι "to perish" (aorist tense) but χωρησαι "to make room" (aorist tense) παντας εις "all into" μετανοιαν "change of mind/thinking [traditionally translated "repentence"]"

Does that μακροθυμει εις ημας "is being patient into us" sound awkward?  It isn't awkward in the Koine Greek.  Did you notice the word μακροθυμει (Strong's G3114,"macro-thumei")?  If you chop that word into its constituent parts, it is "far-fury/rage."  At least in this and in a few other instances you can take that literally:  "is being far-fury/rage into us."

Another good example is in the parable of the "Unmerciful Servant" in Matt 18:  "Be patient (μακροθυμησον, "far-fury/rage") with me and I will pay you all."

Another would be 1 Pet 3:20, where the μακροθυμια "patience" (i.e. "far-fury/rage") of God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being constructed.

[Note:  The verb/noun μακροθυμεω/μακροθυμια more generally means "patient/patience," without necessarily the implication of coming wrath in each instance, only some.]

Again, the "point of shedding of blood" was "blood" αντι "blood" and "life" αντι "life."  This is all a fulfillment of the Old Testament, particularly the "Old Covenant."  It is not a "Greek" understanding.

"Why did the sacrifices have to be without spot or blemish?"  This points to Jesus being without sin or fault.  The Jews actually "selected" Jesus and examined him during the days prior to passover, and could not find any spot or blemish with him.  Then, they sacrificed him. It is a perfect parallel.

Keep in mind that Jesus was handed over by the Jews to the Gentiles, who were the ones who brutalized him and tortured him to death.  Recognize the Hebrew Old Covenant understanding:  In the Old Covenant, the "nations" were the unclean, godless people who were supposed to be displaced from the promised land.  Because they weren't driven out, they were "thorns" to the Hebrews, and they represent the "demons" of New Covenant understanding.

The Old Testament vs. New Testament types and parallels are very rich indeed!

Let me re-quote Isa 53:4-5, highlighting two words:

Isaiah 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
Note the "yet we esteemed him...," in the first person plural, not "God esteemed him...." Jesus is, was, and always will be God.  So what do we say?  That God smote Jesus, that God smote God, that Jesus smote Jesus, or that Jesus smote God?

The verbs are in the passive voice:  "...stricken...smitten...afflicted...was pierced...was crushed...."

The Jews and the Gentiles both smote Jesus.  Jesus willingly allowed himself to be smitten, to fulfill the justice of God.  He was indeed "penalized" in a "substitution" for us, "atoning" for our sins and afflictions, which is the doctrine of "PSA."  The penalization was as required by God, and fulfilled the justice of God on our behalf. So, as verse 6 continues,

כלנו כצאן תעינו איש לדרכו פנינו ויהוה הפגיע בו את עון כלנו׃ (Hebrew)
παντες ως προβατα επλανηθημεν ανθρωπος νη οδωαυτου επλανηθη και κυριος παρεδωκεν αυτον ταις αμαρτιαις ημων (LXX)
The words ויהוה הפגיע בו (Strong's H3068 + H6293) above can be translated "YHWH intercedes in him" as a practical manifestation, as well as "YHWH has caused to encounter in him," more loosely translated "YHWH has laid on him," as well as LXX translation κυριος παρεδωκεν αυτον (Strong's G2962 + G3860 + G846, "kurios paradoken auton" = "Lord [nominative case] delivers [aorist tense] same [accusative case, referring back to Jesus]").  So, there is the "Penal Substitutionary" aspect of the atonement again, which CV extremists must be challenged with.

Again, the point is to not go to the extreme of "angry God poured out his wrath on Jesus," as if God was ever angry with himself.  Again, the Father was always pleased with the Son.

CV "body" vs. PSA "blood"

It seems that CV extremists recognize the body, but don't recognize the blood, and PSA extremists recognize the blood, but don't recognize the body. I made up this table highlighting the distinctions that are often overlooked:

Blood shed for our sins. Body broken for our afflictions.
The sins were our fault, no matter how much the devil tempted us to commit them. The afflictions were the devil's fault, no matter how much we allowed them.
The blood/life/death was for the sins. The brutalization was for the afflictions.
The Jews (God's people of the Covenant) said he must die. The Romans (the godless of the nations) brutalized his body.
The Jews yelled "crucify" but had no law to do so. The Romans found no cause for "death" but crucified whomever they wished, gratuitously.
The Jews declared, "Let his blood be on our heads, and on our children's." The Romans declared themselves "innocent of his blood" and "washed their hands" of it, tortured and killed him, shedding his blood in the process.
The Jews fulfilled the ultimate Passover. The Romans fulfilled the ultimate torture/affliction.
The Jews represent God's Covenant people, Israel. The Romans represent the nations with which Israel contended.
Israel corresponds to the εκ-κλησια = "out-calling" of God today. The nations correspond to the δαιμονια, the demons today.
Sins were paid for, as a final consequence of the Jews' intentions. Afflictions were paid for, as a final consequence of the Romans' intentions.
The blood shed was predicted by the Word of God. The body broken was predicted by the Word of God.
In the Lord's Supper, the wine = the blood. In the Lord's Supper, the bread = the body.
We are no longer held guilty of sins. God himself paid the price with the blood of His Son. The devil has no more right to afflict us. God himself paid the price with the body of His Son.
Those who do not recognize the blood reject the Word of God, and will remain condemned. Those who do not recognize the body reject the Word of God, and will remain afflicted.
Pardon from sins is accepted and obtained by faith. Freedom from afflictions is accepted and obtained by faith.

God's covenant people, the Jews, representing Israel, the type of the εκκλησια ("ekklesia"), chose to shed the blood of Jesus, whom they selected as the ultimate Passover lamb, while the Romans, the non-covenant people, the type of the δαιμονια ("daimonia"), chose to torture/brutalize him.  This was all in God's foresight and wisdom, however.  The one being sacrificed and tortured/brutalized was God.  The price paid was of eternal value as a result.

By "the ultimate Passover lamb," I refer to the actual passover lamb, which the one(s) in the Old Covenant merely pointed to as a type of.  In any case, Jesus was slaughtered on the, and as the, actual passover, after a week of their examining him and finding no spot or blemish (i.e. no sin).  The Jews selected him and handed him over to be slain. Jesus willingly purposed to be slain and walked right into it.

By simply believing the Word of God, we "enter into his rest," are pardoned from our sins, of which consequence was the death penalty, and freed from our afflictions, which the devil was bringing upon us.

Now we are in the age of "grace" ("favor"), where the good news is being proclaimed, freedom to all who are captive to sin and bound to affliction.  There is no more curse for those who believe.

For those who persist in rejecting the Word of God in unbelief, there is a wrath of God to come.  In this, men have chosen to be judged apart from the grace and provision of God.  It is again their choice, not God's intention.  In "passionate indignation" and with "rage/fury," God and his agents (angels) will torture/brutalize the world and its people by bringing horrible calamities upon it, shed their blood, kill them, and cast them into the Lake of Fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

No copyrightI grant this work to the public domain.