PCUSA uncomfortable with phrase "Till on that cross as Jesus died / the wrath of God was satisfied."

25516 reads

There are 197 Comments

KenFields's picture

Don Sailer wrote:

Shaynus wrote:

Don, 

"My God, My God why have you forsaken me?" was quoted by Jesus at the cross. If he was seen by God as only innocent, why would God forsake Him (and do the rest of the imagery in PS 22)? It's not impossible for God to see Jesus both as sinless and as bearing the sin of the world. Just like the doctrine of the trinity, our categories for what is possible or impossible break down in the light of the cross. Why can't it be that God can pour his wrath out on Jesus who is made sin for us, and that the same Jesus be perfectly sinless. I see no contradiction. In addition to Is. 53, what about Psalm 22?

 

 

 

Hi Shaynus,

Jesus was quoting Psalm 22:1. There is no way to reference a psalm in his day except by reciting the first line. I encourage you to read Psalm 22 to see what it is about. You will then see why Jesus referred those present to the psalm. It is also important to understand that both Matthew and Mark transliterate the saying. This was done so that the reader would know that Jesus is quoting scripture.

Can you show me a verse in the Bible that states that God poured out his wrath on Jesus? The issue isn't whether or not you see a contradiction. The issue is whether or not the Bible states that God poured our his wrath on Jesus.

Blessings.

Don,

I'm attempting to grasp your logic here, so are you saying that Jesus did not really mean what He said on the cross ... that Jesus simply "felt" forsaken? Or, are you saying that Jesus was simply quoting the first line of a Psalm He never intended to be applied to His cross-work? Or, are you saying something else?

I've read Psalm 22 multiple times to attempt to understand what you are aiming at in your comment ... because you really didn't answer why Jesus cry of "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me" doesn't mean that God actually did forsake His Son on our behalf.

Perhaps I am dense and am slow at understanding your argument, so please help me out here.

Ken Fields

Don Sailer's picture

KenFields wrote:

Don Sailer wrote:

Shaynus wrote:

Don, 

"My God, My God why have you forsaken me?" was quoted by Jesus at the cross. If he was seen by God as only innocent, why would God forsake Him (and do the rest of the imagery in PS 22)? It's not impossible for God to see Jesus both as sinless and as bearing the sin of the world. Just like the doctrine of the trinity, our categories for what is possible or impossible break down in the light of the cross. Why can't it be that God can pour his wrath out on Jesus who is made sin for us, and that the same Jesus be perfectly sinless. I see no contradiction. In addition to Is. 53, what about Psalm 22?

 

 

Hi Shaynus,

Jesus was quoting Psalm 22:1. There is no way to reference a psalm in his day except by reciting the first line. I encourage you to read Psalm 22 to see what it is about. You will then see why Jesus referred those present to the psalm. It is also important to understand that both Matthew and Mark transliterate the saying. This was done so that the reader would know that Jesus is quoting scripture.

Can you show me a verse in the Bible that states that God poured out his wrath on Jesus? The issue isn't whether or not you see a contradiction. The issue is whether or not the Bible states that God poured our his wrath on Jesus.

Blessings.

Don,

I'm attempting to grasp your logic here, so are you saying that Jesus did not really mean what He said on the cross ... that Jesus simply "felt" forsaken? Or, are you saying that Jesus was simply quoting the first line of a Psalm He never intended to be applied to His cross-work? Or, are you saying something else?

I've read Psalm 22 multiple times to attempt to understand what you are aiming at in your comment ... because you really didn't answer why Jesus cry of "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me" doesn't mean that God actually did forsake His Son on our behalf.

Perhaps I am dense and am slow at understanding your argument, so please help me out here.

 

Jesus is on the cross. He wants those present to realize that he is fulfilling this psalm in their presence. How does he do that?  He quotes from the first line of the psalm. The Gospel writers, Matthew and Mark, want the reader to know that Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1, so they transliterate the phrase in the Gospels.

Psalm 22:24 indicates that God did not despise or disdain the suffering of the afflicted one. Nor did he turn his face from him.

If you read Psalm 22, a psalm written by David, even David knows that he is not forsaken by God. Jesus now applies this psalm and this truth to the crucifixion scene. It was the Jews who were mocking him with "He trust in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him" (v. 8). After the Jews mock Jesus like this (Matthew 28:41-43), he then quotes Psalm 22:1 to refute their mocking. And when he dies, he quotes the last word of Psalm 22:1, it is finished. Truly this psalm is about Jesus' death and truly it claims that God has not turned his face from Jesus.

God did not forsake Jesus on the cross and Jesus didn't think that God did. He referred to Psalm 22: 1 to prove that he was not disdained or despised by God. That as the afflicted one, God's face was upon him and that God was with him and for him. There is no indication from the Gospel record that Jesus felt forsaken by God. He was in constant communion with his Father. Read the four Gospel accounts and you will see that Jesus died on the cross in the same way any other person would die on the cross. Yet he died for our sins. He died as an atoning sacrifice. He died as a fragrant offering and beautiful sacrifice to God. God was pleased with his Son and Jesus knew this (John 8:29, 16:32). Jesus believed that his Father would be with him when he was crucified. Shouldn't we believe his words over anyone else's?

Blessings.

Mark_Smith's picture

Let's see...Jesus was so anguished over what was going to happen on the cross and in his beating (don't forget that that is part of this) that he sweat blood. Now, LOTS of people were crucified in the Roman empire. How many of them sweat blood? 

 

For 3 hours the Sun darkened. Nothing to see here.

 

Jesus wasn't killed...he gave up His life. He died quickly on the cross. The average person lingers for at least a day if not more on the cross. That is why the leaders sent out people to break legs for the Sabbath. Jesus, however, had already died.

Don Sailer's picture

DavidO wrote:

Don did affirm God's wrath toward guilty humans.  He may have affirmed His wrath toward sin itself--I'm not rereading the thread at this point.  But if he so affirms, is it so hard to see, if he agrees Jesus bore our sins on the cross, and God's wrath is directed toward sin, that Jesus suffered under God's wrath?

Edit: not sure why I'm talking about him like he's not here.  Smile

 

Hi DavidO,

I agree that Jesus bore (carried, took up) our sins "on" his body. Greek preposition "en" can be translated "on." 1 Peter 2:24 could be translated as, "He himself carried our sins on his body on the tree."

God's wrath is directed at sinners, not sin. Jesus is not a sinner. He is the righteous one. God "gave" the Son (John 3:16). The giving of the Son was an act of love (John 3:16, 1 John 4:10). Jesus "gave" himself up for us in love (Ephesians 5:1-2). The atoning sacrifice "demonstrates" God's love for us and his justice for us (Romans 5:8, 3:25). If Jesus' death "satisfies" God's justice then it also satisfies his love.

Now where is the verse that states that the atoning sacrifice "demonstrates" God's wrath?

In all of these references, there isn't even a hint of God pouring out wrath on Jesus or of Jesus being the recipient of God's wrath. No where does the Bible state that Jesus suffered the wrath of God.

All I'm asking for from those who claim that Jesus suffered the wrath of God when he died is to show me one verse that connects Christ's death, sacrifice, offering, suffering to the word "wrath." It just isn't in the Bible.

And yet the Bible states that when Jesus was crucified, God did not despise or disdain the suffering of the afflicted one (Palm 22:24). God did not turn his face from him (Psalm 22:24). The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous one and not one of his bones will be broken (Psalm 34:15-20, John 19:36). Jesus believed that his Father would be with him when he died and that he would not be alone (John 8:29, 16:32). Jesus communed with God on the cross and spoke with others about his mother (John 19:26), spoke the words "I am thirsty" in order to fulfill the Scripture (John 19:28), spoke the words "It is finished" the last word of Psalm 22 (John 19:30), forgave those who crucified him (Luke 23:34), told a criminal that he would be with him in paradise today (Luke 23:43), committed his spirit to the Father (Luke 19:46), and referenced Psalm 22 by citing the first line of the psalm (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34 transliterated). Is this a picture of a man who is under the wrath of God, forsaken? Or is this a person in communion with his Father and others?

The evidence from the Bible is that Jesus was not forsaken by God on the cross and was not the recipient of God's wrath. He experienced God's presence and face, he was not alone - his Father was with him, he trusted his Father with his spirit, he asked his Father to forgive, he knew he would be in paradise, he stated things for the sole purpose of fulfilling Scripture.

Why is it so hard to believe the words of Scripture? Why is it so hard to believe that God did not pour out his wrath on Jesus when he died on the cross? The Scriptures have spoken.

 

 

 

 

 

Kirk Mellen's picture

Don:

If Jesus, in quoting Psalm 22:1, is doing so in response to the tauntings of the Jews concerning His professed relationship to God, it would be the only recorded words Jesus spoke on the cross in His own defense.  And if it were in His own defense, would it not have made better sense to quote or paraphrase verse 24?  Peter also reminds us in his epistle that Jesus refused to respond to those who taunted Him.  Your line of reasoning is interesting, but does not seem biblically defensible.

Don Sailer's picture

MShep2 wrote:

Don, I have read through this thread and it seems you conflate three different terms/concepts:

  1. Was the wrath of God "poured out" on Christ on the cross?
  2. Did Christ's death satisfy God's wrath?
  3. If there must be a penalty for sin (Rom. 6:23), did Christ pay that penalty on the cross?

Of these three, only the terminology of the first can be questioned since the Bible doesn't seem to use that language. However, in order for the answers to 2 and 3 to be "no" you must ignore much of what Scripture says about sin and its penalty. If Isaiah 53:5 does not refer to this, I don't have any idea what it means:

But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. (NASB)

To say this has nothing to do with Christ suffering the penalty for our sins stretches the meaning to the breaking point.

Also, your argument is to constantly say, "show me a verse" but you disqualify any verses using the Gk. word hilasmos by defining it differently than the rest of those posting here. 

Ok, if it will make you feel better, for now let's lose the "poured out" language. However you still must answer the following questions:

Why did Christ had to die on the cross if He did not shed His blood to provide remission of sin (Heb. 9:22)? And how did Christ provide remission (aphesis - "remission of a penalty") if the penalty was not paid?

Why he say teleo on the cross if there was no requirement to pay/fulfill?

If all he did was show His love and obedience by dying on the cross, then why did it have to be the perfect Lamb of God to take away (airo) the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29). Couldn't someone else have died and showed God's love? (And, since during the time of the Romans thousands suffered beating and crucifixion, why does the Bible present the suffering of Christ as something extraordinary and unique?) 

Thank you for your post. Now you hit on what I am demonstrating.

I would argue that we should describe the atoning sacrifice by using the language of the Bible.

God "gave" the Son.

God demonstrates his love in this, Christ "died" for us.

Jesus is a "ransom."

Jesus is a "curse" for us, meaning he died for us so that we might be justified.

Jesus "died for us."

Jesus "died for our sins."

Now show me a verse in the NT that connects the word "penalty" to Christ's death.

Show me a verse in the NT that connects the word "punishment" to Christ's death.

These words are amazingly absent from the description of Christ's atoning sacrifice in the NT.

Now show me a verse that states that "Jesus paid the penalty for sin." There isn't one. This is stunningly amazing! Why isn't there one?

It appears from Scripture that God gave his Son as an atoning sacrifice and for whatever reason the Scriptures avoid the terms penalty, paid, and punished to describe this death. And it most certainly avoids the term "wrath" in relation to Christ's death. Why is this?

My purpose in this thread is to help us redirect our thoughts back to the scriptural language used in the Bible to describe the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. What picture emerges when we only use the "terms" or language found in Scripture to describe Jesus' death?

Don Sailer's picture

Kirk Mellen wrote:

Don:

If Jesus, in quoting Psalm 22:1, is doing so in response to the tauntings of the Jews concerning His professed relationship to God, it would be the only recorded words Jesus spoke on the cross in His own defense.  And if it were in His own defense, would it not have made better sense to quote or paraphrase verse 24?  Peter also reminds us in his epistle that Jesus refused to respond to those who taunted Him.  Your line of reasoning is interesting, but does not seem biblically defensible.

 

I think that Jesus quoted the first line of Psalm 22 to demonstrate that he was fulfilling the psalm in his crucifixion. I used a poor choice of words when I stated that Jesus was defending himself against the taunts of the religious leaders. They taunted him at the third to sixth hour. Jesus doesn't quote Psalm 22:1 until the ninth hour. Most in the crowd thought that Jesus was calling for Elijah, but the Pharisees would have understood the quote. Then in rapid succession, Jesus commits his spirit to his Father, breathes his last and says the word "asa'" (finished), bows his head, and dies.

Why quote Psalm 22:1 and not Psalm 22:24?

Because as you have pointed out, the quotation was not a direct refutation to the religious leaders. Psalm 22:1 as a stand in for the whole psalm reveals many more connections.

Psalm 22:7-8 details the mocking abuse.

Psalm 22:9-10 details the relationship Jesus had with the Father from birth.

Psalm 22:14 details how water poured out from his side and how his bones are out of joint.

Psalm 22:15 details his diminished strength.

Psalm 22:16 details the circumstances of his death among evil people, his hands and feet pierced.

Psalm 22:17 details the bones protruding, and people gloating.

Psalm 22:18 details the casting of lots for his garments.

Psalm 22:19-23 details the trust of Jesus in his Father.

Psalm 22:24 details the Father's attitude and position toward his Son on the cross. He listened to his cry for help. God's face is not hidden from the Son.

Psalm 22:25-31 details the results of the Son's death concluding with "They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn.

Psalm 22:31 details the claim that "it is finished."

As you have correctly pointed out, the citation of Psalm 22:1 was not to refute the direct accusatory mocking of the religious leaders. Instead, Jesus referred the religious leaders to the whole of Psalm 22 to indicate that he was fulfilling all of these things.

Can you imagine the stunned thoughts of the Pharisees when they contemplated this psalm with all that they had just witnessed?

 

Greg Long's picture

Don Sailer wrote:

MShep2 wrote:

Don, I have read through this thread and it seems you conflate three different terms/concepts:

  1. Was the wrath of God "poured out" on Christ on the cross?
  2. Did Christ's death satisfy God's wrath?
  3. If there must be a penalty for sin (Rom. 6:23), did Christ pay that penalty on the cross?

Of these three, only the terminology of the first can be questioned since the Bible doesn't seem to use that language. However, in order for the answers to 2 and 3 to be "no" you must ignore much of what Scripture says about sin and its penalty. If Isaiah 53:5 does not refer to this, I don't have any idea what it means:

But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. (NASB)

To say this has nothing to do with Christ suffering the penalty for our sins stretches the meaning to the breaking point.

Also, your argument is to constantly say, "show me a verse" but you disqualify any verses using the Gk. word hilasmos by defining it differently than the rest of those posting here. 

Ok, if it will make you feel better, for now let's lose the "poured out" language. However you still must answer the following questions:

Why did Christ had to die on the cross if He did not shed His blood to provide remission of sin (Heb. 9:22)? And how did Christ provide remission (aphesis - "remission of a penalty") if the penalty was not paid?

Why he say teleo on the cross if there was no requirement to pay/fulfill?

If all he did was show His love and obedience by dying on the cross, then why did it have to be the perfect Lamb of God to take away (airo) the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29). Couldn't someone else have died and showed God's love? (And, since during the time of the Romans thousands suffered beating and crucifixion, why does the Bible present the suffering of Christ as something extraordinary and unique?) 

Thank you for your post. Now you hit on what I am demonstrating.

I would argue that we should describe the atoning sacrifice by using the language of the Bible.

God "gave" the Son.

God demonstrates his love in this, Christ "died" for us.

Jesus is a "ransom."

Jesus is a "curse" for us, meaning he died for us so that we might be justified.

Jesus "died for us."

Jesus "died for our sins."

Now show me a verse in the NT that connects the word "penalty" to Christ's death.

Show me a verse in the NT that connects the word "punishment" to Christ's death.

These words are amazingly absent from the description of Christ's atoning sacrifice in the NT.

Now show me a verse that states that "Jesus paid the penalty for sin." There isn't one. This is stunningly amazing! Why isn't there one?

It appears from Scripture that God gave his Son as an atoning sacrifice and for whatever reason the Scriptures avoid the terms penalty, paid, and punished to describe this death. And it most certainly avoids the term "wrath" in relation to Christ's death. Why is this?

My purpose in this thread is to help us redirect our thoughts back to the scriptural language used in the Bible to describe the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. What picture emerges when we only use the "terms" or language found in Scripture to describe Jesus' death?

Is. 53 does all these things, Don, but of course you refuse to accept that, even though it is the commonly accepted view of evangelical scholars. And of course there are plenty of NT verses that, taken together (just like verses that help us form the doctrine of the Trinity), do the same.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Don Sailer's picture

James K wrote:

To all, I find it almost humorous the number of you who overlook what Don is actually asking for and instead post excerpts out of systematic theologies.  Good grief.  Consider that you are only reinforcing his contention.  It would be like asking for a verse that saying that the rapture is pretrib.  No verse exists.  Some of you would run to Ryrie or Pentecost.  Enough already.  Check yourselves.

To Don's original point, there is no verse that explicitly states that the cross satisfied the wrath of God.  That doesn't at all mean it isn't true though.  We know the same is true for the Trinity.  There is no verse that explicitly states that God exists in three persons yet is one.

To prove the case, one would have to demonstrate that the Bible explicitly teaches:

1. That God's righteous response to sin is wrath

2. That sin will be judged in 2 ways:

a. The death of Jesus as substitute for man

b. eternal torment to the unbeliever

We know that according to Romans 1, God's wrath is revealed against the sinfulness of man (Rom 1:18, 2:5-8).  The unbeliever is storing up for himself wrath for the day of God's wrath.  The gospel is presented as the deliverance (salvation) from God's wrath (Rom 1:16).

So going back to the cup matter, I present the following:

So this would address 2b.

Jer 25:15-26 - the text explicitly mentions the cup of God's wrath against the nations.  Rev 14:10 is the NT counterpart to Jeremiah's prediction.  It is the wrath of God mixed in the cup of His anger.  

So this would address 2a.

The cup that Jesus prayed with great intensity to avoid was this same cup.  It was NOT the cup of the New Covenant.  The NC was going to be a time of great joy and blessing.  The language through the OT and NT presents it as glorious and marvelous in its scope.  It isn't a time of judgment and wrath at all.

During the Lord's supper, the cup of the NC was the 3rd of 4.  Jesus did not drink the final cup and wouldn't until He returned in His kingdom.  This is just ignorance of what Jesus did in the upper room really.

Jesus didn't experience blessing and joy on the cross.  He had to endure the bitterness of God's wrath.

So Don, while I admire your tenacity to be truthful, a little more study would help out quite a bit.  I wish you well in your future studies that you too will see the greatness of Jesus' suffering for us.

 

 

Thank you, James, for your kind words. You get it.

I would ask you to explain how the cup is the cup of God's wrath in light of Mark 10:39. If the cup is the cup of God's wrath and the disciples will drink this cup along with Christ, the whole theological system of God pouring out his wrath on Jesus so that he can't pour out his wrath on us is unfeasible. The closest antecedent to the "cup" in Luke 22:42 is found in Luke 22:20. And this cup is the cup of the New Covenant.

As to a pretribulation rapture, there are many that would claim that the timing of the rapture is spelled out in Scripture by citing Matthew 24:31, 2 Thess. 1:7, and 2 Thess. 2:1-8.

As to the trinity, there are explicit building blocks in Scripture. God (elohim) creates. The Word is with God and the Word is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father and the Son are one. God says to the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." etc. etc. The building blocks are there.

Where are the building blocks for "penalty," "paid," "punishment," and "wrath," in relation to the references in the Bible that describe the "death," "suffering," "offering," or "sacrifice" of Christ?

Why do the writers of Scripture shy away from applying the first set of terms to the second set of terms? I find this shockingly amazing!

Don Sailer's picture

Ron Bean wrote:

Greg was very gracious when he said:

Don was outside of the mainstream of evangelical scholarship on this issue.

I would simply say that Don is wrong. The PCUSA and other theologically liberal groups have long denied the wrath of God. Don seems to agree with their position.

That is just so ungracious. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that God pours out his wrath on unbelievers and that those who reject Christ stand condemned already.

I'm glad that God is love and that he demonstrates this love to me in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Because if you folks were God, I would be burning in hell.

It is amazing that you are resorting to name calling because I am asking you to back up your claim that God poured out his wrath on Jesus from scripture. You can only support your claim by resorting to man-made theologies.

If you really cared about the Word of God, you would pause at the information that for whatever reason, the scripture writers refused to apply the words "paid," "penalty," "punishment," and "wrath" to the death of Christ.

That you refuse to do so demonstrates the hardness of your heart to the Word of God. You would rather have Calvin or Grudem than Christ.

Don Sailer's picture

Greg Long wrote:

Don Sailer wrote:

MShep2 wrote:

Don, I have read through this thread and it seems you conflate three different terms/concepts:

  1. Was the wrath of God "poured out" on Christ on the cross?
  2. Did Christ's death satisfy God's wrath?
  3. If there must be a penalty for sin (Rom. 6:23), did Christ pay that penalty on the cross?

Of these three, only the terminology of the first can be questioned since the Bible doesn't seem to use that language. However, in order for the answers to 2 and 3 to be "no" you must ignore much of what Scripture says about sin and its penalty. If Isaiah 53:5 does not refer to this, I don't have any idea what it means:

But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. (NASB)

To say this has nothing to do with Christ suffering the penalty for our sins stretches the meaning to the breaking point.

Also, your argument is to constantly say, "show me a verse" but you disqualify any verses using the Gk. word hilasmos by defining it differently than the rest of those posting here. 

Ok, if it will make you feel better, for now let's lose the "poured out" language. However you still must answer the following questions:

Why did Christ had to die on the cross if He did not shed His blood to provide remission of sin (Heb. 9:22)? And how did Christ provide remission (aphesis - "remission of a penalty") if the penalty was not paid?

Why he say teleo on the cross if there was no requirement to pay/fulfill?

If all he did was show His love and obedience by dying on the cross, then why did it have to be the perfect Lamb of God to take away (airo) the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29). Couldn't someone else have died and showed God's love? (And, since during the time of the Romans thousands suffered beating and crucifixion, why does the Bible present the suffering of Christ as something extraordinary and unique?) 

Thank you for your post. Now you hit on what I am demonstrating.

I would argue that we should describe the atoning sacrifice by using the language of the Bible.

God "gave" the Son.

God demonstrates his love in this, Christ "died" for us.

Jesus is a "ransom."

Jesus is a "curse" for us, meaning he died for us so that we might be justified.

Jesus "died for us."

Jesus "died for our sins."

Now show me a verse in the NT that connects the word "penalty" to Christ's death.

Show me a verse in the NT that connects the word "punishment" to Christ's death.

These words are amazingly absent from the description of Christ's atoning sacrifice in the NT.

Now show me a verse that states that "Jesus paid the penalty for sin." There isn't one. This is stunningly amazing! Why isn't there one?

It appears from Scripture that God gave his Son as an atoning sacrifice and for whatever reason the Scriptures avoid the terms penalty, paid, and punished to describe this death. And it most certainly avoids the term "wrath" in relation to Christ's death. Why is this?

My purpose in this thread is to help us redirect our thoughts back to the scriptural language used in the Bible to describe the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. What picture emerges when we only use the "terms" or language found in Scripture to describe Jesus' death?

Is. 53 does all these things, Don, but of course you refuse to accept that, even though it is the commonly accepted view of evangelical scholars. And of course there are plenty of NT verses that, taken together (just like verses that help us form the doctrine of the Trinity), do the same.

I've already answered your claim that Isaiah 53 is all about God beating and abusing his Son. Isaiah 53 clearly states that humans afflicted the suffering servant, not God.

God did lay the iniquities of us all on the suffering servant. Literally, God let the iniquities of us all strike him. And God is also "pleased" that Jesus died because of the effects his death would accomplish.

Jesus can suffer and die at the hands of sinful men without being punished by God. If Jesus was punished by God, it should be rather easy to quote the verses. It is amazing that with all of the opportunities the scripture writers had in making this claim, they never did so.

I ask any open minded reader to look through your concordance or computer program and see if what I am stating is true. Why didn't any of the writers state that Jesus paid the penalty for sin? Why didn't they state that God punished Jesus on the cross for our sins? Why didn't they state that the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus so that all who believe will be free from God's wrath?

Why? Because apparently this is not the emphasis of the sacrificial gift of God. Instead we find the atoning sacrifice of Christ wrapped up in the language of love (1 John 4:10, Romans 5:8, John 3:16, Ephesians 5:1-2).

Why do you hate the love of God so much in the context of Jesus death?

 

Jay's picture

Don Sailer wrote:

I do find the analogy of the OT sacrificial system of the sin offering. I also find an analogy of ransom.

Hi Don-

I've seen this thrown out a few times but haven't seen an explanation of 'ransom'.  In your analogy of ransom - who is the one that demands the ransom?  God?

I'm not sure that I agree with you on 'ransom', but it's hard to tell with all the posts and crossposts.  If you can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

 

I also have to admit that I'm surprised that there is a thread on SI that has more than 100+ replies that DOESN'T mention Northland or music.  Well, aside from my mentions in this post.

Biggrin

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Greg Long's picture

Don Sailer wrote:
Why do you hate the love of God so much in the context of Jesus death?
I think this quote is indicative of your approach in this argument, Don. Instead of dealing with arguments, you ignore the ones you don't want to answer, dance around the ones you can't answer, and attack those who believe otherwise. You really know my heart to know that I hate the love of God in the context of this issue? Wow, Don. That's about as helpful as me asking why you hate the justice of God or why you hate the wrath of God. And that my heart is hard because I quote other scholars instead of the Bible, even though you know full well many of us have quoted multiple Scripture references? Again, you know and have judged my heart to be hard? Wow x 2.

BTW, I think it is funny that you were quick to jump on the Calvin bandwagon when you thought he agreed with you, but when it was proven that he didn't, well then all of a sudden it is wrong to quote anyone but the Bible.

And just for the record, I never called you a liberal. I said that on this particular issue, you have sided with those in the liberal camp against the mainstream of evangelical scholarship.

I'm not sure what else can be said except thanks for the interaction.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Don Sailer's picture

Jay wrote:

Don Sailer wrote:

I do find the analogy of the OT sacrificial system of the sin offering. I also find an analogy of ransom.

Hi Don-

I've seen this thrown out a few times but haven't seen an explanation of 'ransom'.  In your analogy of ransom - who is the one that demands the ransom?  God?

I'm not sure that I agree with you on 'ransom', but it's hard to tell with all the posts and crossposts.  If you can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

 

I also have to admit that I'm surprised that there is a thread on SI that has more than 100+ replies that DOESN'T mention Northland or music.  Well, aside from my mentions in this post.

Biggrin

 

Ugh! You just ruined it! Smile

Matthew 20:28 states that the life of Jesus is a ransom (lutron). 1 Timothy 2:6 also states that Jesus himself is the ransom (antilutron). In fact it states that Jesus gave himself to be a ransom. The concept is certainly in alignment with Jesus giving himself as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Ephesians 5:1-2). Hebrews 9:15 also states that Jesus had died as a ransom or redemption of sins (apolutrosis), which literally means "release."

This concept is then used in Colossians 1:14 and Ephesians 1:7 where we see that we have redemption or release through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.

So the forgiveness of sins is through his blood. We are released or bought back or redeemed from our sins through his blood. Jesus' death redeems us from our sins. His life was a ransom for our sins, buying us back or releasing us from sin.

Since the wages of sin is death, the ransom appears to have been paid to "death" in order to release us from death. Hebrews 2:9 states that Jesus "suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone" (NIV). This is my tentative conclusion. See also 1 Corinthians 15:55-56. It appears that the ransom may have been paid to death. Jesus then rises from the dead destroying the devil and releasing us from death's grasp or power over us. Again, these are tentative conclusions.

Some have claimed that Jesus was a ransom to the devil, who holds the power of death. I can't find enough scriptural support for this concept. However, Hebrews 2:14-15 does explain that the death of Jesus "might destroy him who holds the power of death - that is, the devil - and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death."

So again, Jesus in his death as ransom destroys the devil, takes away or releases us from our sins, and defeats death.

So what does the atoning sacrifice (or ransom, that is, Jesus' life) accomplish? It accomplishes three things: Christ's sinless death destroys the devil, takes away our sins (the forgiveness of sins), and defeats the power of death.

Blessings.

 

Don Sailer's picture

Greg Long wrote:

Don Sailer wrote:
Why do you hate the love of God so much in the context of Jesus death?
I think this quote is indicative of your approach in this argument, Don. Instead of dealing with arguments, you ignore the ones you don't want to answer, dance around the ones you can't answer, and attack those who believe otherwise. You really know my heart to know that I hate the love of God in the context of this issue? Wow, Don. That's about as helpful as me asking why you hate the justice of God or why you hate the wrath of God. And that my heart is hard because I quote other scholars instead of the Bible, even though you know full well many of us have quoted multiple Scripture references? Again, you know and have judged my heart to be hard? Wow x 2.

BTW, I think it is funny that you were quick to jump on the Calvin bandwagon when you thought he agreed with you, but when it was proven that he didn't, well then all of a sudden it is wrong to quote anyone but the Bible.

And just for the record, I never called you a liberal. I said that on this particular issue, you have sided with those in the liberal camp against the mainstream of evangelical scholarship.

I'm not sure what else can be said except thanks for the interaction.

How does it feel to have your character impugned? Of course I don't know your heart. And you don't know mine. So stop calling me a liberal outside the realm of evangelical scholarship.

Everything you state in this post can be pointed back at you. You have yet to answer the question as to why the scriptural writers wrap the atoning sacrifice in the context of love and not wrath.

As to the Calvin quote, I was tweaking you, but you failed to catch on. Smile By the way, Calvin is all over the board on many of these issues. Calvin is not my source of authority - the Bible is.

 

Don Sailer's picture

Greg,

Answer one question.

What implications do you draw from the fact that the scripture writers refuse to apply the words "paid," "penalty," "punishment," and "wrath" to the death of Christ?

 

Don Sailer's picture

To those of you who claim that Jesus is the recipient of God's wrath, that he was punished for our sins, and that he paid the penalty for sin, isn't it up to you to prove this contention from the Bible?

Since the Bible does not use the words "paid,", "penalty," "punishment," or "wrath" in relation to Jesus' death, suffering, offering, or sacrifice, on what basis do you claim that Jesus was punished by God for our sins, experiencing God's wrath for us?

This question is not like the trinity or the rapture. Both of these topics have numerous scriptural references that directly present the concept.

Build your case by using the terms found in the Bible, not the ones you import into Scripture.

 

Mark_Smith's picture

I am doing this for my own benefit. I have little doubt Don won't see the significance of it.

 

In Galatians Paul says Christ became a curse for us (Gal 3:13). What is "a curse"? Don offered earlier that it meant "Jesus is a "curse" for us, meaning he died for us so that we might be justified." Is Don's definition valid?

 

Look earlier in Gal 3:10, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."" So a curse comes on a person who doesn't fulfill the Law as outlined in the Pentateuch. What is that curse? It is the various results of not following the Law as the Pentateuch outlines in various places. It can be death, financial loss, famine, lots of things. 

Here is the important part. Jesus became the CURSE for us. He bore the brunt of our not following the Law on Himself. He faced the WRATH of God that resulted from our not following the Law. He fulfilled the Law in Himself by not sinning, but He also bore the result of us not fulfilling the Law.

KenFields's picture

Don Sailer wrote:

Jay wrote:

Don Sailer wrote:

I do find the analogy of the OT sacrificial system of the sin offering. I also find an analogy of ransom.

Hi Don-

I've seen this thrown out a few times but haven't seen an explanation of 'ransom'.  In your analogy of ransom - who is the one that demands the ransom?  God?

I'm not sure that I agree with you on 'ransom', but it's hard to tell with all the posts and crossposts.  If you can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

 

I also have to admit that I'm surprised that there is a thread on SI that has more than 100+ replies that DOESN'T mention Northland or music.  Well, aside from my mentions in this post.

Biggrin

 

Ugh! You just ruined it! Smile

Matthew 20:28 states that the life of Jesus is a ransom (lutron). 1 Timothy 2:6 also states that Jesus himself is the ransom (antilutron). In fact it states that Jesus gave himself to be a ransom. The concept is certainly in alignment with Jesus giving himself as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Ephesians 5:1-2). Hebrews 9:15 also states that Jesus had died as a ransom or redemption of sins (apolutrosis), which literally means "release."

This concept is then used in Colossians 1:14 and Ephesians 1:7 where we see that we have redemption or release through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.

So the forgiveness of sins is through his blood. We are released or bought back or redeemed from our sins through his blood. Jesus' death redeems us from our sins. His life was a ransom for our sins, buying us back or releasing us from sin.

Since the wages of sin is death, the ransom appears to have been paid to "death" in order to release us from death. Hebrews 2:9 states that Jesus "suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone" (NIV). This is my tentative conclusion. See also 1 Corinthians 15:55-56. It appears that the ransom may have been paid to death. Jesus then rises from the dead destroying the devil and releasing us from death's grasp or power over us. Again, these are tentative conclusions.

Some have claimed that Jesus was a ransom to the devil, who holds the power of death. I can't find enough scriptural support for this concept. However, Hebrews 2:14-15 does explain that the death of Jesus "might destroy him who holds the power of death - that is, the devil - and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death."

So again, Jesus in his death as ransom destroys the devil, takes away or releases us from our sins, and defeats death.

So what does the atoning sacrifice (or ransom, that is, Jesus' life) accomplish? It accomplishes three things: Christ's sinless death destroys the devil, takes away our sins (the forgiveness of sins), and defeats the power of death.

Blessings.

 

Don,

I really don't get your point that Christ's ransom is paid to "death" itself. You seem to be stretching the interpretation of the Hebrews 2 and 1 Corinthians 15 passages in order to make "death" the recipient of the payment or ransom.

In addition, who subjected the created order to death? Romans 8:20 answers that question. Logically, then, the one who enacted the curse must be the one to whom the ransom is paid. Death is not an "actor" in the story of redemption, and therefore cannot logically be the recipient of the ransom payment. Rather, death is a consequence and result of sin ... enacted by God upon the created order following the fall in the garden (Romans 5:12-14).

 

Ken Fields

christian cerna's picture

Don, are you denying the humanity of Christ? By saying that the only reason Jesus spoke the words of Psalm 22 was to draw attention to that particular scripture, you are in essence saying that he uttered those words without really feeling them. But all of the words that Jesus spoke on the cross were things that he was thinking and feeling in those moments. Like when he promised the thief that he would be with him in paradise. Or when he said that he was thirsty. Or when he asked John to watch over his mother. He was speaking those things in his humanity, a more perfect humanity than any of us have ever experienced.

When I read the Psalms aloud, I feel those things that the Psalmist wrote, because I am human, just like the person writing them. The psalms are the perfect expression of the human soul, in its most joyous moments, as well as in its anguish. 

We need to be careful not to paint a simplistic view of scripture, as if it were nothing more than formulas for our theology. The words of scripture are history. They are words spoken by men. Men who loved, who experienced joy and pain and suffering.

Just because a man experiences sorrow, or grief, or mourning, or fear, or loneliness, does not make him any less spiritual. Often times, those who are most spiritual, are the ones who experiences these things most greatly. There are times when the Bible calls people to mourn and to weep. David was a man after God's heart, yet his Psalms are often complaints about how the wicked man prospered, while the godly was pursued. I am sure that when David wrote the 22nd Psalm, he really did feel that God had forsaken him. If not, then his words lose all their meaning. 

 

Jesus is our advocate, because he knows what it is like to be human. He has experienced human weakness. He was tempted in the desert. He was hungry and thirsty. He mourned the death of loved ones. If you turn all of Jesus words into merely bible references, then you are taking away from his humanity.

Greg Long's picture

Don Sailer wrote:

Greg,

Answer one question.

What implications do you draw from the fact that the scripture writers refuse to apply the words "paid," "penalty," "punishment," and "wrath" to the death of Christ?

According to Is. 53, he was stricken, smitten, afflicted, wounded, bruised, and chastised for our iniquities (v. 4-5). By whom? By men, and by God (v. 10). Why? To "make His soul an offering for sin" (v. 10). With what result? God was satisfied and many were justified (v. 11).

Jesus Himself said He was the ransom for sin (Mark 10:45). The very word ransom means a redemption price; a price that is paid to redeem someone. The word "paid" isn't used because the meaning is bound up in the word "ransom." I could quote the EDNT or TDNT on this but I won't for fear of my motives being questioned. Smile

I and others have already done a sufficient job explaining the biblical texts that help us understand the aspects of penalty, punishment, and wrath, which are bound up in the word "propitiation," so I won't rehash that here.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

christian cerna's picture

Don, 

Earlier you wrote that David wrote Psalm 22 even though he knows that he is not forsaken by God. You must be careful with your view. It is a slippery slope. For if you really believe this, then you must say this of all the Psalms. How do we know if David really felt the way he says he did in any of his Psalms? Was he merely making everything up, for dramatic effect? Were they really words from the heart? 

 

 

 

 

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

christian cerna wrote:

How do we know if David really felt the way he says he did in any of his Psalms? Was he merely making everything up, for dramatic effect? Were they really words from the heart? 


Without answering for Don, I would note that *feeling* that one is forsaken by God is not in fact the same as actually being forsaken by God. David could easily have truly felt forsaken by God and then later, thinking with his head, instead of with his heart, have indicated that no, God did not actually forsake him. [Note: I'm not saying that this must have been the case when David wrote the Psalm, only that it is possible.]

Dave Barnhart

Don Sailer's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

I am doing this for my own benefit. I have little doubt Don won't see the significance of it.

 

In Galatians Paul says Christ became a curse for us (Gal 3:13). What is "a curse"? Don offered earlier that it meant "Jesus is a "curse" for us, meaning he died for us so that we might be justified." Is Don's definition valid?

 

Look earlier in Gal 3:10, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."" So a curse comes on a person who doesn't fulfill the Law as outlined in the Pentateuch. What is that curse? It is the various results of not following the Law as the Pentateuch outlines in various places. It can be death, financial loss, famine, lots of things. 

Here is the important part. Jesus became the CURSE for us. He bore the brunt of our not following the Law on Himself. He faced the WRATH of God that resulted from our not following the Law. He fulfilled the Law in Himself by not sinning, but He also bore the result of us not fulfilling the Law.

 

Mark,

Can you see the leap of logic in your statement. You rightfully deduce that the curse can be "death, financial loss, famine, lots of things." Well, you were right. The curse in Galatians 3:10 means death.

Jesus became the curse for us means that he died for us. Everything is good so far. Then you make this big leap. You go from Jesus dying for us to "He faced the WRATH of God." Where did the verse state this? The curse of the law is death. Jesus died for us. That's it. That's all the verse is saying.

Well, actually, Paul felt compelled to add something more. Paul felt compelled to tell us that no one can be justified before God by the law. The implication is that those who live by faith are released from the curse of the law (death) and are justified.

Now if Paul wanted to say that Jesus became a curse for all and faced the wrath of God so that we could be justified, he could have stated this. For some reason, he didn't.

Don Sailer's picture

christian cerna wrote:

Don, 

Earlier you wrote that David wrote Psalm 22 even though he knows that he is not forsaken by God. You must be careful with your view. It is a slippery slope. For if you really believe this, then you must say this of all the Psalms. How do we know if David really felt the way he says he did in any of his Psalms? Was he merely making everything up, for dramatic effect? Were they really words from the heart? 

 

 

 

 

That's not quite what I stated. I stated that even David knew he wasn't forsaken by God by the time he finished writing this psalm. He starts out with his cry, but then finishes with the affirmation that he is not forsaken by God.

Don Sailer's picture

Greg Long wrote:

Don Sailer wrote:

Greg,

Answer one question.

What implications do you draw from the fact that the scripture writers refuse to apply the words "paid," "penalty," "punishment," and "wrath" to the death of Christ?

According to Is. 53, he was stricken, smitten, afflicted, wounded, bruised, and chastised for our iniquities (v. 4-5). By whom? By men, and by God (v. 10). Why? To "make His soul an offering for sin" (v. 10). With what result? God was satisfied and many were justified (v. 11).

Jesus Himself said He was the ransom for sin (Mark 10:45). The very word ransom means a redemption price; a price that is paid to redeem someone. The word "paid" isn't used because the meaning is bound up in the word "ransom." I could quote the EDNT or TDNT on this but I won't for fear of my motives being questioned. Smile

I and others have already done a sufficient job explaining the biblical texts that help us understand the aspects of penalty, punishment, and wrath, which are bound up in the word "propitiation," so I won't rehash that here.

 

Gingrich Lexicon:

hilasmo and hilasterion

3202  i`lasmo,j
i`lasmo,j, ou/, o` expiation, sin offering {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_1Jo 2:2')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul 1 J 2:2}}}\cf1\ulnone ; {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_1Jo 4:10')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul 4:10}}}\cf1\ulnone .* [pg 93]

3203  i`lasth,rion
i`lasth,rion, ou, to, means of expiation, place of expiation {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Rom 3:25')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul Ro 3:25}}}\cf1\ulnone ; {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Heb 9:5')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul Hb 9:5}}}\cf1\ulnone .* [pg 93]

christian cerna's picture

You said that the last line of psalm 22 is "it is finished". But I am not seeing that? Can you help me out?

 

Don Sailer's picture

Greg Long]</p> <p>[quote=Don Sailer wrote:

Greg,

Answer one question.

Jesus Himself said He was the ransom for sin (Mark 10:45). The very word ransom means a redemption price; a price that is paid to redeem someone. The word "paid" isn't used because the meaning is bound up in the word "ransom." I could quote the EDNT or TDNT on this but I won't for fear of my motives being questioned. Smile

 

Good.

God gave a ransom (Jesus) to whom? death? sin? the devil?

And when God gave the ransom (Jesus) for all (1 Timothy 2:6), what happened?

 

Don Sailer's picture

christian cerna wrote:

You said that the last line of psalm 22 is "it is finished". But I am not seeing that? Can you help me out?

 

The last word of Psalm 22 is the Hebrew word "asa'." It means "done" or finished.

Asa' is translated in Psalm 22:31 as "he has done it." It could just as correctly be translated "it is finished."

Don Sailer's picture

KenFields wrote:

Don Sailer wrote:

Jay wrote:

Don Sailer wrote:

I do find the analogy of the OT sacrificial system of the sin offering. I also find an analogy of ransom.

Hi Don-

I've seen this thrown out a few times but haven't seen an explanation of 'ransom'.  In your analogy of ransom - who is the one that demands the ransom?  God?

I'm not sure that I agree with you on 'ransom', but it's hard to tell with all the posts and crossposts.  If you can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

 

I also have to admit that I'm surprised that there is a thread on SI that has more than 100+ replies that DOESN'T mention Northland or music.  Well, aside from my mentions in this post.

Biggrin

 

Ugh! You just ruined it! Smile

Matthew 20:28 states that the life of Jesus is a ransom (lutron). 1 Timothy 2:6 also states that Jesus himself is the ransom (antilutron). In fact it states that Jesus gave himself to be a ransom. The concept is certainly in alignment with Jesus giving himself as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Ephesians 5:1-2). Hebrews 9:15 also states that Jesus had died as a ransom or redemption of sins (apolutrosis), which literally means "release."

This concept is then used in Colossians 1:14 and Ephesians 1:7 where we see that we have redemption or release through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.

So the forgiveness of sins is through his blood. We are released or bought back or redeemed from our sins through his blood. Jesus' death redeems us from our sins. His life was a ransom for our sins, buying us back or releasing us from sin.

Since the wages of sin is death, the ransom appears to have been paid to "death" in order to release us from death. Hebrews 2:9 states that Jesus "suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone" (NIV). This is my tentative conclusion. See also 1 Corinthians 15:55-56. It appears that the ransom may have been paid to death. Jesus then rises from the dead destroying the devil and releasing us from death's grasp or power over us. Again, these are tentative conclusions.

Some have claimed that Jesus was a ransom to the devil, who holds the power of death. I can't find enough scriptural support for this concept. However, Hebrews 2:14-15 does explain that the death of Jesus "might destroy him who holds the power of death - that is, the devil - and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death."

So again, Jesus in his death as ransom destroys the devil, takes away or releases us from our sins, and defeats death.

So what does the atoning sacrifice (or ransom, that is, Jesus' life) accomplish? It accomplishes three things: Christ's sinless death destroys the devil, takes away our sins (the forgiveness of sins), and defeats the power of death.

Blessings.

 

Don,

I really don't get your point that Christ's ransom is paid to "death" itself. You seem to be stretching the interpretation of the Hebrews 2 and 1 Corinthians 15 passages in order to make "death" the recipient of the payment or ransom.

In addition, who subjected the created order to death? Romans 8:20 answers that question. Logically, then, the one who enacted the curse must be the one to whom the ransom is paid. Death is not an "actor" in the story of redemption, and therefore cannot logically be the recipient of the ransom payment. Rather, death is a consequence and result of sin ... enacted by God upon the created order following the fall in the garden (Romans 5:12-14).

 

Ken,

I stated a tentative conclusion. I don't know for sure who God paid the ransom to. Was it to death personified? Was it to sin? Was it to the devil? I don't know for sure. Do you?

And because I'm not sure I don't make sweeping statements about who God paid the ransom to. If I did I would be reading into the text something I'm not sure of!

So why are many so quick to read into the text the idea that when Jesus died for our sins he bore God's wrath? The text of Scripture doesn't say this anywhere. So if I make this claim, I am reading into the text something that isn't there.

You can easily question my comments about God paying a ransom to "death." Now you should just as easily question other people's comments about God pouring out his wrath on Jesus.

Pages