Justice, Wrath, and Propitiation

I would categorize myself as an observer who is very interested in the outcome of this particular question. I too was taught the boiler plate theology surrounding the Cross. I bought in. But you have not refuted Don in any way. Greg, you have simply regurgitated what most here could because it has been ingrained in us. Dr. Bauder did the same thing with the main points of a 1st year seminary class.

My observation is that any and all of the men you named could be wrong on this point. ( In fact, you probably have disagreements with each of them on some point of Scripture.) They are men. Good men too. But nothing keeps them from regurgitating what they have been taught or just not having the “revelation” to get it right. Peter was also a great man who walked with Christ Jesus, but he still was rebuked by Paul for his error. And undoubtedly there were those who thought Paul was wrong because Peter had better church cred.

Don’s point is not popular because it isn’t boiler point doctrine. It challenges us. It is a small but important point that must make us wrestle again with what happened at that pivotal point in history. Disagreement on the point won’t damn anyone, but clarification does help more fully understand the nature of God. And that is why I too wonder why the scripture does not say “Father God poured out His wrath on His Son Jesus.” Pretty big point to leave out (in multiple accounts by multiple recorders of the Holy Spirit’s words).

Don, in your last post from the previous thread, you said that man has already been punished by God(physical death). You say that physical death is God’s punishment for sin. Every man who has ever been born has received this punishment from God.

If this is true, then by your own words you are saying that Jesus was punished by God also the moment he came into the world. The eternal God became man. And as man, he also had to experience death.(punishment for sin)

[Don Sailer]

Thank you, Jeff, for admitting that it is your theory of penal substitution that causes you to support a concept not found in the scriptures. I was waiting for someone to acknowledge this.

Jesus does not need to be punished for our sins. We already are punished for our sins. We have died spiritually and we are dying physically. We are walking dead men and we are condemned already. See Romans 5:12-13, 16, 18; John 3:17. Therefore, Jesus did not die to be punished for our sins. We have already died. And if we die a physical death outside of Christ, our present condemnation will be eternal.

Perhaps this is why, every time the scripture writers have the opportunity to say “Jesus paid the penalty for sin,” they pull up and refuse to make this statement.

I have answered the rest of the issues you raised elsewhere. Jesus was not forsaken by God.

Don:

Despite the abundance of evidence offered above, you refuse to yield any ground. Your argument is simple -

a.) If a doctrine is not specifically spelled out in the biblical text the way Don Sailer’s thinks it should be, it is UNbiblical

b.) Many concede that in fact the Bible does not delineate the penal substitution in the way Don Sailer requires,

c.) Therefore the view of Christ as a penal substitute is unbiblical.

Then …

Let’s all give up the following doctrines because they won’t meet Don’s biblical prooftexting requirements (or someone else’s)

1. The Trinity - NOT in the Bible

2. The Rapture - pre, post, mid, pre-wrath (take your pick) NOT in the Bible

3. Impeccability - NOT in the Bible (can’t find impeccability in my concordance)

4. Inerrancy

5. Infallibility

6. Immutability

7. Omniscience

8. Omnipotence

9. Asceity

10. etc., etc., etc.

Moreover, Christian schools (like the one Don teaches at) is not mentioned in the Bible so his job must be unbiblical, mission boards (NOT in the Bible); Christian camps (like the one Don’s grandfather helped to start - NOT in the Bible).

Now for music - let’s think about what we do that is not in the Bible … hummmmmmm.

Don, it seems that you have won your case. Despite what Bauder, Grudem, all of the guys Greg Long listed above, plus Tom Schreiner, Martin Luther, John MacArthur, yada, yada, yada, believe, the penal substitution is NOT in the Bible in a way that Don is willing to accept.

“Jesus was not forsaken by God” … ok … guess he was confused as he hung on the cross.

In His Robes For Mine, pastor Chris Anderson penned the following chorus:

I cling to Christ, and marvel at the cost:
Jesus forsaken, God estranged from God.
Bought by such love, my life is not my own.
My praise-my all-shall be for Christ alone.

Dutch theologian Hermann Bavinck (1854-1921) captured a similar thought in his Reformed Dogmatics discussion on Christ’s humiliation. He wrote:

In the cry of Jesus we are dealing not with a subjective but with an objective God-forsakenness: He did not feel alone but had in fact been forsaken by God. His feeling was not an illusion, not based on a false view of his situation, but corresponded with reality. (3:389)

Thanks Phil for this quote from Bavinck.

Finally, finally, Jeff didn’t like my comment above. So I direct the attention to an article Michael Vlach wrote several years ago in The Master’s Seminary Journal on this issue. The historical reality is that in recent years the rejection of the penal substitution has been a hallmark of theological liberalism. But then don’t take my word for it. Argue with Vlach.

Jeff Straub

Don wrote to me

Jesus was not forsaken by God.

and to Greg

Like I said, Greg, I’m sticking with Scripture and the scripture writers.

Does anyone else see the interesting contradiction here. Don requires one level of biblical support for some things and denies that same level of support as it applies to others.

Because the Bible DOES NOT say Jesus received the wrath of God upon himself, it must be unbiblical

However, even though Jesus DOES say he was forsaken by God, Don categorically denies this.

Huh? Ok … .

Jeff Straub

[christian cerna]

Don, in your last post from the previous thread, you said that man has already been punished by God(physical death). You say that physical death is God’s punishment for sin. Every man who has ever been born has received this punishment from God.

If this is true, then by your own words you are saying that Jesus was punished by God also the moment he came into the world. The eternal God became man. And as man, he also had to experience death.(punishment for sin)

Jesus is God in the flesh, conceived by the Holy Spirit. He is perfect man. His physical human nature is like Adam’s before the fall. Jesus never sinned and therefore he was never the object of wrath or condemnation. He is God’s gift of righteousness to the world so that by entering into his life of obedience through his sacrifice, we are made righteous by grace (Romans 5:18-19). In Christ we are made the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). It is his righteous life culminated in an obedient act of death that makes us righteous when we believe by grace through faith.

Jesus did not have to die because he was sinless. And yet “he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9). In tasting death for us, he destroyed the devil, made atonement for our sins, and defeated death (Hebrews 2:14-17). This is why Jesus died. Not to be punished for our sins, but to make atonement for our sins, covering our sins, so that we can be reconciled to God. This is an amazing gift from God. Now that God has reconciled the world to himself in Christ, we are implored on Christ’s behalf to be reconciled to God.

Isn’t this wonderful news! You, be reconciled to God! Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!

This is amazing news!

[Jeff Straub]

Don wrote to me

Jesus was not forsaken by God.

and to Greg

Like I said, Greg, I’m sticking with Scripture and the scripture writers.

Does anyone else see the interesting contradiction here. Don requires one level of biblical support for some things and denies that same level of support as it applies to others.

Because the Bible DOES NOT say Jesus received the wrath of God upon himself, it must be unbiblical

However, even though Jesus DOES say he was forsaken by God, Don categorically denies this.

Huh? Ok … .

Jeff Straub

Jeff,

Jesus was quoting the first line of Psalm 22 to tell the crowd and us that he is the fulfillment of this messianic psalm. Psalm 22:24 states that Jesus was not despised or disdained on the cross. God did not hide his face from him. Furthermore, Jesus quotes the last word of the psalm, “asa’,” which means “it is finished.” Finally Psalm 34:15-20 states that the eyes of the LORD are on the righteous … not one of his bones will be broken. John then affirms that this passage applies to Jesus (John 20:36). That’s right. Not one of his bones were broken AND God’s face was on Christ when he suffered and died (Psalm 34:15).

Jesus also stated that he would not be forsaken on the cross even though his disciples would forsake him (John 8:29, John 16:32). Don’t believe me, Jeff. But at least you can believe Jesus. He claimed that he would not be alone when he was lifted up on the cross because his Father would be with him.

One more thing, Jeff, the Gospel writers, Matthew and Mark, transliterate the words of Jesus on the cross regarding the first line of Psalm 22 just so people like you would understand that it was a quote.

It is curious that the part of Ps 22 Jesus chooses to quote is the first verse. I am glad for you to explain to me why the Gospel writers have included the Aramaic text. So how do you know why they are doing it? Your explanation misses the obvious … he quoted what he identified with—fully and completely.

No one who holds the penal substitution argues that Jesus was finally and fully forsaken by the Father. But for a moment in TIME, the fellowship that the Triune God knew from eternity passed, was somehow inextricably fractured. The Father turned his face from the Son as he hung bearing the sin and then turned back to the Son accepting the sacrifice made not utterly forsaking him.

Your explanation of Jesus’ use of the forsaking text is simply to ignore the text proper as if the words have no meaning. Jesus chose this phrase among seven to tells us about what transpired on the cross. You have simply ignored what he said because it does not comport with your view.

Jesus must have had a particular reason for quoting those words beyond simply saying “I am the fulfillment of Ps 22, but not THESE words. They actually are meaningless in my case!”

[Jeff Straub]

It is curious that the part of Ps 22 Jesus chooses to quote is the first verse. I am glad for you to explain to me why the Gospel writers have included the Aramaic text. So how do you know why they are doing it? Your explanation misses the obvious … he quoted what he identified with—fully and completely.

No one who holds the penal substitution argues that Jesus was finally and fully forsaken by the Father. But for a moment in TIME, the fellowship that the Triune God knew from eternity passed, was somehow inextricably fractured. The Father turned his face from the Son as he hung bearing the sin and then turned back to the Son accepting the sacrifice made not utterly forsaking him.

Your explanation of Jesus’ use of the forsaking text is simply to ignore the text proper as if the words have no meaning. Jesus chose this phrase among seven to tells us about what transpired on the cross. You have simply ignored what he said because it does not comport with your view.

Jesus must have had a particular reason for quoting those words beyond simply saying “I am the fulfillment of Ps 22, but not THESE words. They actually are meaningless in my case!”

Jeff, if Jesus on the cross wanted to bring to mind the whole of Psalm 22 to those present, especially the Pharisees, how would he do that?

Would he not quote the first line of the Psalm?

[Jeff Straub]

It is curious that the part of Ps 22 Jesus chooses to quote is the first verse. I am glad for you to explain to me why the Gospel writers have included the Aramaic text. So how do you know why they are doing it? Your explanation misses the obvious … he quoted what he identified with—fully and completely.

No one who holds the penal substitution argues that Jesus was finally and fully forsaken by the Father. But for a moment in TIME, the fellowship that the Triune God knew from eternity passed, was somehow inextricably fractured. The Father turned his face from the Son as he hung bearing the sin and then turned back to the Son accepting the sacrifice made not utterly forsaking him.

Your explanation of Jesus’ use of the forsaking text is simply to ignore the text proper as if the words have no meaning. Jesus chose this phrase among seven to tells us about what transpired on the cross. You have simply ignored what he said because it does not comport with your view.

Jesus must have had a particular reason for quoting those words beyond simply saying “I am the fulfillment of Ps 22, but not THESE words. They actually are meaningless in my case!”

Jeff, what did Jesus mean when he stated that he would not be alone when lifted up on the cross? What did he mean when he stated that his Father would be with him for he always does what pleases him? (John 8:29, John 16:32).

Does it not mean that the Father was with Jesus throughout his suffering and death?

[Jeff Straub]

It is curious that the part of Ps 22 Jesus chooses to quote is the first verse. I am glad for you to explain to me why the Gospel writers have included the Aramaic text. So how do you know why they are doing it? Your explanation misses the obvious … he quoted what he identified with—fully and completely.

No one who holds the penal substitution argues that Jesus was finally and fully forsaken by the Father. But for a moment in TIME, the fellowship that the Triune God knew from eternity passed, was somehow inextricably fractured. The Father turned his face from the Son as he hung bearing the sin and then turned back to the Son accepting the sacrifice made not utterly forsaking him.

Your explanation of Jesus’ use of the forsaking text is simply to ignore the text proper as if the words have no meaning. Jesus chose this phrase among seven to tells us about what transpired on the cross. You have simply ignored what he said because it does not comport with your view.

Jesus must have had a particular reason for quoting those words beyond simply saying “I am the fulfillment of Ps 22, but not THESE words. They actually are meaningless in my case!”

Jeff, what was John’s point in John 19:36 when he quotes from Psalm 34:20, which states, “he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken”? What significance is there that Psalm 34:20 is connected to Psalm 34:15, which states, “The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their cry”? Or to verse 17, which states, “The righteous cry out, and the LORD hears them”? Or to verse 19, which states, “A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all?”

Is it not the point that the eyes of the LORD were on the righteous Jesus when he suffered and died?

[Andrew K.]

[Don Sailer]

[Jeff Straub]

Don wrote to me

Jesus was not forsaken by God.

and to Greg

Like I said, Greg, I’m sticking with Scripture and the scripture writers.

Does anyone else see the interesting contradiction here. Don requires one level of biblical support for some things and denies that same level of support as it applies to others.

Because the Bible DOES NOT say Jesus received the wrath of God upon himself, it must be unbiblical

However, even though Jesus DOES say he was forsaken by God, Don categorically denies this.

Huh? Ok … .

Jeff Straub

Jeff,

Jesus was quoting the first line of Psalm 22 to tell the crowd and us that he is the fulfillment of this messianic psalm. Psalm 22:24 states that Jesus was not despised or disdained on the cross. God did not hide his face from him. Furthermore, Jesus quotes the last word of the psalm, “asa’,” which means “it is finished.” Finally Psalm 34:15-20 states that the eyes of the LORD are on the righteous … not one of his bones will be broken. John then affirms that this passage applies to Jesus (John 20:36). That’s right. Not one of his bones were broken AND God’s face was on Christ when he suffered and died (Psalm 34:15).

Jesus also stated that he would not be forsaken on the cross even though his disciples would forsake him (John 8:29, John 16:32). Don’t believe me, Jeff. But at least you can believe Jesus. He claimed that he would not be alone when he was lifted up on the cross because his Father would be with him.

One more thing, Jeff, the Gospel writers, Matthew and Mark, transliterate the words of Jesus on the cross regarding the first line of Psalm 22 just so people like you would understand that it was a quote.

Two questions. Please redirect to the proper location if these have already been answered.

First, if there was no broken fellowship with the Father, what was Jesus so distraught about in Gethsemane? Simply the physical anguish?

And second, related, what does it mean then that Jesus “became sin for us”?

For my part, without penal substitution, I have a hard time making sense of the inner logic of the sacrificial system at all. Wouldn’t the believing Israelite look at the innocent lamb having its throat cut and see that as a substitute for him? What is the blood, if not the life? For this one, maybe I’m just not getting the nuances of what you’re saying, though.

The Bible no where speaks of the Father’s fellowship being broken with the Son. It just isn’t in the Bible. It is pure speculation and eisegesis (reading into the text what is not there). As the Holy One of God, Jesus is going to carry the sin of the world on his body. He is going to die for our sins. God is going to lay on him the iniquities of us all. Is that not enough to create anguish in Gethsemane as Jesus contemplates what is about to happen? The righteous Christ is going to bear the sins of the world. The sinless Christ is going to be touched with our sins. And yet, even here, the righteous Christ obeys onto death, even the death of a cross (Phil. 2:8).

Jesus “became sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21) means that Jesus became a sin offering for us (Romans 8:3). The word “sin” in both of these contexts is understood to be a sin offering.

The inner logic of the sacrificial system is that an animal would die and shed its blood to atone for sin. But, animal sacrifices cannot take away sin. An better offering was needed. That offering was the perfect, sinless Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29, Hebrews 10:11-12). Maybe your hang-up is coming from trying to fit a theory (penal substitution) into the words of Scripture instead of letting Scripture dictate your theory.

Don, when I read the Gospels, and Jesus is in front of the disciples or pharisees quoting a part of the scriptures, he makes it clear that he is doing so. He makes mention of Moses, or the prophets, or uses the phrase “it is written..” or something to that effect.

I doubt very much that Jesus would spend his last moments worrying about what the pharisees were thinking of him. It says that Jesus cried out with a loud voice “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”. That to me sounds like a cry to God who is in heaven. By saying that Jesus was merely quoting scripture, you are taking away the power and beauty of that moment.

2 Cor. 5:21 says, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” It is possible that at some moment on the cross, when Jesus became sin on our behalf, that God the Father, in a sense, turned His back upon the Son. It says in Hab. 1:13 that God is too pure to look upon evil. Therefore, it is possible that when Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), that the Father, spiritually, turned away. At that time, the Son may have cried out.

One thing is for sure. We have no capacity to appreciate the utterly horrific experience of having the sins of the world put upon the Lord Jesus as He hung, in excruciating pain, from that cross. The physical pain was immense. The spiritual one must have been even greater.

That shows us clearly how much God loves us.

Don, do you believe that Jesus bore the sins of the world on himself? Think about that for a moment. If you do believe this, that means that all sins(adultery, murder, witchcraft, rebellion, disobedience, fornication, strife, covetousness, greed, gluttony, homosexuality, idolatry, etc, etc.) that men ever sinned from the beginning of creation up until the final judgment, were laid upon the Lamb of God. Do you think God the Father, being holy, could countenance all of that?

With all of those sins upon himself, how could Jesus not feel anguish of spirit, and cry out to God?

[Don Sailer]

[Jeff Straub]

It is curious that the part of Ps 22 Jesus chooses to quote is the first verse. I am glad for you to explain to me why the Gospel writers have included the Aramaic text. So how do you know why they are doing it? Your explanation misses the obvious … he quoted what he identified with—fully and completely.

No one who holds the penal substitution argues that Jesus was finally and fully forsaken by the Father. But for a moment in TIME, the fellowship that the Triune God knew from eternity passed, was somehow inextricably fractured. The Father turned his face from the Son as he hung bearing the sin and then turned back to the Son accepting the sacrifice made not utterly forsaking him.

Your explanation of Jesus’ use of the forsaking text is simply to ignore the text proper as if the words have no meaning. Jesus chose this phrase among seven to tells us about what transpired on the cross. You have simply ignored what he said because it does not comport with your view.

Jesus must have had a particular reason for quoting those words beyond simply saying “I am the fulfillment of Ps 22, but not THESE words. They actually are meaningless in my case!”

Jeff, if Jesus on the cross wanted to bring to mind the whole of Psalm 22 to those present, especially the Pharisees, how would he do that?

Would he not quote the first line of the Psalm?

[Don Sailer] In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God… and the word became flesh and dwelt among us.

I and my Father are one.

Baptize in the “name” of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? “While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Hebrews 1:1-5 - You are my Son; today I have become your Father. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory.

Here, O Israel, the LORD our God is one.

So just off the top of my head I have shown from Scripture that God is one, that his name is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. So from the scriptures, using the scripture’s words the reader can deduce that God is one being, consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don’t even have to use the words three persons or trinity to explain who God is in the Bible. Using only scriptural language and terms I can state emphatically that God is one whose name is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Forgive me if if I missed someone making this rather obvious point upstream, but I see nothing here a modalist couldn’t agree with. Nor would your willful limiting of your theological vocabulary to terms that appear in the Bible (seems English translations are fine, phew!) allow you, it seems to me, to definitively refute modalism. Problem?