First thought…the payment analogy where someone else pays God is a little, in my mind, misdirected. The fact remains that the debt that is owed God is not monetary. And if the blood of bulls and goats could ever atone for sins, then we could probably talk about satisfying a debt as opposed to forgiveness of sins. It is said that Jesus bore our sins – indeed was MADE SIN FOR US – so that what happened on the cross was certainly, in an indirect sense, an obligation. But it is no more an obligation (in that sense) than it is an obligation for the winning racer to run fastest and be the first to cut the ribbon. Yes, they are obliged to do so, but there is no debt obligation as we understand it in a financial sense. If you are going to win, you must cross the finish line. So, too, if Jesus was going to gain that victory (I don’t know that I am a Christus Victor sort of guy…I’ll have to see), He HAD to bear the wrath of God. He HAD to bear death. He had to do all these things in order to deliver those who, for a long time, had lived in fear of death (Hebrews 2:14-15…you just quoted that…note that it is fear of death, not fear of Satan). If Christ became sin for us, and the wages of sin is death, then it was necessary for the Father to forsake Jesus. It was necessary for Him to pour out His Wrath upon Him.

Take another analogy. If you have cancerous cells, they are a corruption of your own healthy cells. Radiation or chemicals that attack those sick cells is nasty. It’s awful. It must be deadly because of what it is attacking. In one sense, it is as though YOU are being attacked. That is true. But what is also true is that it is your sick cells that are being attacked. Were those cancerous cells not there, then there would be no reason for radiation or chemotherapy to be administered. By analogy, God’s wrath is upon the wicked because of their corruption. Someone who clings to their “cancer” and doesn’t seek outside help will die from it. The wages of sin is death. Christ came to regenerate those cells – make them healthy again – so there would be no need for destruction of them. The analogy, while good, only goes as far as to illustrate how I see the “retribution”. God isn’t out to get you, but at the same time, He cannot and will not abide sin. So Christ’s sacrifice does what no self-applied system ever could. It (all at once) brings cleansing from sin, from the power of sin, from the guilt of sin and from the consequences of sin – all because sin was atoned for. Reconciliation is only possible where the bone of contention is dealt with. It isn’t that God dug in His heels and said “I just won’t fellowship with someone who is sinful” but (and I admit the anthropomorphic illustration is seriously lacking) that He simply cannot do so and remain pure. Where that falls short is that God put up with men like Job and David. Job, while an upright man, still had pride in his heart. David, while a man after God’s own heart still committed murder, adultery and even conspired to allow his sin to be unresisted (!). But God was looking at something else. Something of more interest to God was uncorrupted (my contention). As far as I can see, that deeper “thing” is where the contention is. So when men get leary of a penal atonement, I get leary about them getting leary because there is, I think, something else that is not necessarily very clear (in man) that makes it difficult to discern this “mystery of iniquity” (good term…but may not be the same application as what Paul gives it).

Ephesians 2 is great for this topic…