Penal Substitutionary Atonement
- Thread starter Tree of Life
- Start date
- Jun 9, 2017
- 2,300
- 2,102
- 27
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
The questions of the Orthodox tend to center around the doctrine of the Substitutionary Atonement, which in conservative Evangelical circles is often made a touchstone of Christian orthodoxy. It is referenced in many Christian schools’ statement of faith – required of teachers and students on a par with the Resurrection of Christ.
Questions of the Atonement seem significant from a Protestant direction (in classical terms) based on Reformation debates with Roman Catholics. In those debates Protestants tended to hear Catholics say that there was something that could be added to the “merits” of Christ’s death – something that made His death on the cross less than sufficient. This is an historical argument. Generally Catholics did not mean what Protestants accused them of saying and neither group was interested in finding common ground. The purpose of debate was to prove the other wrong.
The ground shifted on Atonement doctrine during the 20th century when liberal Protestants began to question Atonement theory, in some cases making reference to Christ’s “death” where traditional texts had read “blood.” This was famously the case in some verses of the RSV translation of the Scriptures which was a translation sponsored by the National Council of Churches, and thus dominated by liberal Bible scholarship. Though the intention on the part of the translators was probably not to deny anything about the blood of Christ, the hue and cry of conservative Protestants was, “Nothing but the blood of Jesus!” (The same translation rendered the Greek hilasterion as expiation rather than propitiation, again alarming conservative Protestants that Christ’s atoning death was being denied.)
Orthodoxy comes late to this entire discussion, having been completely absent at the Reformation, and not a party to the debates between liberal and conservative Protestants in the 20th century. The understanding of Christ’s atoning death developed in a very different manner in the Eastern Church. Untouched by the debates of the Reformation, alien to the metaphors that came to dominate in the Latin-Germanic West in the Middle Ages, the atonement never became a matter of debate or conciliar doctrine in the East. The language used in the prayers of the Liturgy were probably the most eloquent statements of Christ’s atoning death, but generally made no mention of the ideas found in the Substitionary model.
Today, those ideas have occasionally come under sharp attack from some Eastern Orthodox (Kalomiros’ River of Fire is probably the most commonly cited screed), though elements of the Substitutionary model can be found in a number of Orthodox prayers or catechisms of the more modern period. It can be argued that these examples are largely borrowings from Protestant writings rather than developments from within Orthodox patristic thought.
The clearest Orthodox complaint about Substitionary imagery is the role played within it by the Justice of God and the Wrath of God. In classical Substitionary doctrine, God’s justice is understood to have been offended by the sin of man (in Anselm it is not so much justice as “God’s honor.”) Indeed, God’s justice or honor is “infinitely” offended in most classical treatments. Thus, man is infinitely deserving of infinite punishment. However, God’s love responds with infinite mercy and, in Christ’s death on the cross, He offers His only Son as a substitute for man, Christ Himself bearing the burden of the wrath of God on behalf of all humanity. In accepting His substitution on our behalf (by faith) man comes into a saving relationship with God.
There is no Orthodox complaint with the mercy of God, nor with Christ’s death as God’s saving act for mankind. The primary complaint is with the imagery of God’s wrath being raised to the point of dogma – that is to a place where the whole turn of a central doctrine of the faith depends upon this image. Equally problematic is the language about God’s justice, which is frequently described as “requiring satisfaction.”
The Orthodox problem with these images is that they are just that: images. Orthodoxy teaches that, through Christ, we can know God, though God in His essence is unknowable. The mystery which surrounds God and even our knowledge of Him is essential in Orthodox understanding. There is always a warning within Orthodox theology when we speak very plainly about God – that we know only what God has made known to us – and though we know Him, that knowledge is itself frequently a mystery – something that cannot be expressed sufficiently in words.
Thus to speak of God’s wrath (as the Scriptures certainly do) is not to say that God is angry in any way comparable to the anger of man. To speak of God’s wrath is a theological statement about the rupture in our relationship with Him and should not be confused with a statement about how God feels. Much use of the imagery of wrath in modern conservative Protestantism is often used in this literal manner, coming dangerously close (and in some cases crossing the line) of saying things about God that are simply untrue and deeply offensive. These literal uses give rise to caricature on the part of some (Monty Python comes quickly to mind) or rejection of God on the part of others (I have had conversations with many atheists and agnostics whose background was conservative Protestant and whose present rejection of God is primarily a rejection of the God of Wrath).
There are as well problems with speaking of God’s justice in terms that are all too human. St. Isaac of Syria famously remarks that “we know nothing of God’s justice, only His mercy.” His argument is drawn from examples such as the parable of the workers in the vineyard – those who begin work late in the day are paid the same as those who work all day. There we see only God’s mercy, not His justice (the Saint says). That God is just is not a point of argument – what it means to say that God is just, however, remains largely a mystery. Anyone who claims to know what he means when he speaks of God’s justice is delusional.
Of course, raising such questions can sound like an echo of liberal Protestant attacks on Scripture and its reliability. Orthodox do not question the reliability of Scripture, only its misuse or misinterpretation. In general, Orthodoxy is uncomfortable with a dogma that seems new or foreign to its own continual usage. If it is central then why does it find no place in the Creeds or the Councils?
Of course, Orthodoxy did not face the same opponents as the West has had within its own internal life. Conservative Protestants, having been wearied by the constant shifts and changes and chimeric positions of liberal Protestants, are justifiably cautious when things that seem so certain for them are questioned by anyone.
A proper Orthodox answer is probably not to “come out fighting,” but to reassure that Orthodoxy has never wavered on the atoning death of Christ, nor questioned that His blood was shed for us, nor that He is the only way to the Father. The language of Orthodoxy has been shaped in the crucible of the great doctrinal debates surrounding the Trinity and the Doctrine of Christ – as well as within the spiritual world of apophatic theology, in which great care is taken not to assert of God what cannot be asserted. This language and this world have preserved a spiritual Tradition that has not wandered from the Truth nor lost its mooring in the reality of God. Conservative Protestants can be understood in their anxieties, but their anxieties cannot be justified in the face of Orthodox faithfulness.
Orthodox questions about Substitionary Atonement language and imagery are a worthy discussion for Protestants. It is the voice of Christian Tradition, rooted in the Fathers that calls for carefulness when speaking of God and circumspection when asserting something as dogma. Orthodoxy is no stranger to dogma and holds it in the highest regard (you can’t imagine), but just so, it questions a dogma when it cannot find it within its own two-thousand year history of councils and canons. Those questions should give pause to any Christian of good will."
Upvote
0
- Jul 1, 2013
- 9,199
- 8,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Are you parsing that word-by-word? The last line could be uttered by any Catholic here and probably no shortage of non-Catholics.
As far as the items preceding the last line, nothing in that passage disagree with what I wrote. And one thing I'm becoming concerned about in this thread. By accident or by design, it looks "substitution" is being used interchangeably with "penal substitution". Same thing with atonement.
Catholics do not dispute Our Lord's substitution or His atonement. Indeed, we shout those items from the rooftops.
The "penal" aspect, however... no.
That would be a nice change in this thread, actually, since this whole "penal substitution" bit seems to be something Calvin pulled out of his... hat.
...
Are you sure you disagree with me? Because that's not a bad summary of the Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia which Catholics believe in.
Somebody else tackled this already. All I'll add is I don't see where He's experiencing God's wrath in that passage.
Yes, taketh away.
Based on what you wrote, I don't think I'm the one you need to be debating in this thread.
Can you quote me the part where scripture says God's wrath was poured out on Our Lord?
It looks like the Protestants in this thread are making points against things nobody else is saying. And their citations of scripture either don't support penal substitution or else they might outright contradict penal substitution.
Going beyond that, we're looking at two different models being argued here.
Penal substitution has the Passion as God the Father pouring His wrath downward onto Our Lord as punishment for sins He didn't commit.
The satisfaction theory of atonement, the Catholic view, is Our Lord's Passion as a perfect act of self-sacrificial love offered upward to God the Father as atonement for man's sins.
Both are atonement, both are substitutionary but only one shows Our Lord experiencing God's wrath.
Upvote
0
faroukfarouk
Fading curmudgeon
Sir, It seems we don't agree on this. For my thoughts, such as they are, the Scripture verses quoted in different posts would be self-explanatory; but otherwise we should probably conclude that we don't agree.
Upvote
0
- Jul 1, 2013
- 9,199
- 8,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
If that's what you want, I'll respect that.
However, feel free to change your mind later.
Upvote
0
Micah888
Well-Known Member
The whole tenor of Isaiah 53 should answer that question, particularly verse 5:But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
What does this mean? the chastisement [Heb musar] of our peace was upon him
Strong's Concordance
musar: discipline, chastening, correction
Original Word: מוּסָר
Brown-Driver-Briggs
מוּסָר noun masculine Proverbs 15:10discipline (of the moral nature), chastening, correction
2 more severely, chastening, chastisement: a. of God, יהוה ׳מ Proverbs 3:11 chastening of Yahweh;שׁדַּי ׳מ Job 5:17; מוּסָֽרְךָ Isaiah 26:16; שְׁלוֺמֵנוּ עָלָיו׳מ Isaiah 53:5 chastisement of (i.e. leading to) our peace was upon him;
Since the Bible throughout presents the wrath of God against sin and ungodliness, why would anyone question that this "chastisement" was not equivalent to the wrath of God? After all Christ was made "Sin" for us.
Upvote
0
Deadworm
Well-Known Member
From thE cross Jesus cries, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement wrongly teaches that at the moment God has literally abandoned Jesus as an expression of His wrath against Jesus, our sin-bearer. But in fact this complaint of abandonment is merely another profound espression of Jesus' problem with doubt. As such, it is an extension of Jesus' urgent plea in Gethsemane: "Abba "Father, let this cup pass from me." True, Jesus ultimately surrenders to God's will. But He has no sense at this time that His death by crucifixion is essential for salvation and thus no belief that His death is a means to substitutionary penal atonement. Otherwise, why would He complain about feeling abandoned by God on the cross?
While still alive, Jesus also cries, "it is finished!" shortly before His death. What He means that His atoning sacrifice is finished. He affirms His bond with the Father and also cries, "Into your hands I commit my spirit." In other words, He realizes that the doubts that plagued Him, prompting His cry of abandonment were not well founded and that God was always with Him throughout the crucifixion process. Indeed, the very notion of God abandoning Himself is absurd and self-contradictory.
Moreover, the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement raises 3 ugly questions that prompt many ethically sensitive people to reject the Gospel as morally monstrous.
(1) How can anyone's death, even the death of God's Son be on any reckoning just punishment for my sin?
(2) How can a just God remain just and pour out His wrath on His innocent Son?
Paul provides a way out of this moral absurdity by implying that God created us with a sinful nature that guarantees that we will sin and therefore, uses the cross as a way to take responsibility for our inevitable sin: "God has imprisoned us all in disobedience, so that He may have mercy on us all Romans 11:32)." In other words, we have no choice but to be born sinners and God imprisons us in that hopeless condition, so that we can be saved on the basis of mercy and grace rather than merit.
While still alive, Jesus also cries, "it is finished!" shortly before His death. What He means that His atoning sacrifice is finished. He affirms His bond with the Father and also cries, "Into your hands I commit my spirit." In other words, He realizes that the doubts that plagued Him, prompting His cry of abandonment were not well founded and that God was always with Him throughout the crucifixion process. Indeed, the very notion of God abandoning Himself is absurd and self-contradictory.
Moreover, the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement raises 3 ugly questions that prompt many ethically sensitive people to reject the Gospel as morally monstrous.
(1) How can anyone's death, even the death of God's Son be on any reckoning just punishment for my sin?
(2) How can a just God remain just and pour out His wrath on His innocent Son?
Paul provides a way out of this moral absurdity by implying that God created us with a sinful nature that guarantees that we will sin and therefore, uses the cross as a way to take responsibility for our inevitable sin: "God has imprisoned us all in disobedience, so that He may have mercy on us all Romans 11:32)." In other words, we have no choice but to be born sinners and God imprisons us in that hopeless condition, so that we can be saved on the basis of mercy and grace rather than merit.
Upvote
0
- Jul 1, 2013
- 9,199
- 8,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
I'll give you A for effort.
But the passage you quoted from Isaiah works just as well for other interpretive models as it does for penal substitution. You still haven't shown where God the Father personally held Our Lord literally guilty for our sins and poured His wrath on Him accordingly.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Apr 22, 2017
- 1,371
- 1,515
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Ok, I thought your issue was limited atonement but I couldn't tell. So the issue is Penal as opposed God being defrauded his honor. Is that your objection?
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,438
- 26,879
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
That Christ's atonement is substitutionary--Christ dies for us on our behalf--isn't the controversial part of the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement; the controversial part is the Penal aspect; namely that the Atonement is about God punishing Jesus in order to avoid having to punish us.
It makes the Atonement an act of God's anger, rather than an act of God's loving kindness; no longer about God in Christ reconciling us to Himself in love, but God needing an outlet for His pent up rage against humanity. Penal Substitution often makes God the enemy we need saving from, amounting to Jesus saving us from His Father--and that most absolutely and certainly is not the Gospel.
There is a place to talk about the wrath of God and its relation to the cross; but the narrative of Jesus rescuing us, not from sin, death, hell, and the devil, but from God amounts to a grotesque parody of the Gospel.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: The Pope's Infallible Interpretation of Isaiah 53 (More Problems with Penal Substitution)
The Pope's Infallible Interpretation of Isaiah 53 (More Problems with Penal Substitution)
Protestants, as their name suggests, don't recognize the authority of the Pope. So it's not surprising that they don't recognize the Pope's infallible interpretation of Isaiah 53 as not involving Penal Substitution. In this post, I'll show the Papal commentary on this crucial passage, which was actually written quite a few decades back by a prior Pope but is still as valid today.
18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. [Isaiah 53:9] 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten [cf Isaiah 53:7], but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins [Isaiah 53:11] in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. [Isaiah 53:5] 25 For you were straying like sheep [Isaiah 53:6], but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Those are the words of St Peter himself, from the 2nd chapter of his First Epistle. He is speaking directly on Isaiah 53, showing how it's to be understood, giving practical illustrations.
What the Pope is saying here is that when it comes to suffering, it's clearly a bad thing in itself (being a product of original sin). But enduring unjust suffering has a meritorious quality about it, since you're suffering for the noble purpose of serving God and exemplifying love of neighbor. It is the patient enduring of unjust suffering that is how the Pope describes how "Christ suffered for you" (v21), and that this was to be an example for how we should patiently endure suffering.
For Protestants who see the Cross as a situation where Jesus suffered the Father's wrath in our place, this talk by the Pope makes little sense. In fact, I'm not surprised that every time I bring up this text in context that Protestants ignore the overall message. But this context is precisely how the Pope quotes and interprets Isaiah 53, not as a matter of suffering the Father's wrath, but rather suffering persecution at the hands of wicked men. The only thing Protestants can really do is fixate on an incorrect interpretation of verse 24, thinking that to "bear sins" means to have the Father punish Jesus in our place, but that's not what this phrase means nor does the context support it.
Since there were no chapters in the original text of the Pope's letter, there's no need to cut off the thought at the end of chapter 2, since the Pope continues on with the same theme:
3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.
Continuing with the "be subject to" theme, the Pope gives the example of how a woman properly submitting to the unjust treatment of her husband can by her humility win her husband to Christ. The Pope went onto summarize: "Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing ... But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed." (v9,14). Note how the phrase "for this you were called" appears also in 2:21, again teaching that not repaying evil for evil is how you gain God's favor. This is identical to what Our Lord taught on the Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake" (Mt 5:10). Jesus Himself was Blessed because we was persecuted for righteousness' sake.
Indeed, this "let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good" (4:19) theme is found throughout the Pope's Letter, since "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble" (1 Pt 5:5-6). Clearly there is a plain and united theme about meritorious suffering running throughout, none of which involves suffering God's wrath.
So the question is, are Protestants going to listen to the Pope as to what Isaiah 53 really means?
The Pope's Infallible Interpretation of Isaiah 53 (More Problems with Penal Substitution)
Protestants, as their name suggests, don't recognize the authority of the Pope. So it's not surprising that they don't recognize the Pope's infallible interpretation of Isaiah 53 as not involving Penal Substitution. In this post, I'll show the Papal commentary on this crucial passage, which was actually written quite a few decades back by a prior Pope but is still as valid today.
18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. [Isaiah 53:9] 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten [cf Isaiah 53:7], but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins [Isaiah 53:11] in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. [Isaiah 53:5] 25 For you were straying like sheep [Isaiah 53:6], but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Those are the words of St Peter himself, from the 2nd chapter of his First Epistle. He is speaking directly on Isaiah 53, showing how it's to be understood, giving practical illustrations.
What the Pope is saying here is that when it comes to suffering, it's clearly a bad thing in itself (being a product of original sin). But enduring unjust suffering has a meritorious quality about it, since you're suffering for the noble purpose of serving God and exemplifying love of neighbor. It is the patient enduring of unjust suffering that is how the Pope describes how "Christ suffered for you" (v21), and that this was to be an example for how we should patiently endure suffering.
For Protestants who see the Cross as a situation where Jesus suffered the Father's wrath in our place, this talk by the Pope makes little sense. In fact, I'm not surprised that every time I bring up this text in context that Protestants ignore the overall message. But this context is precisely how the Pope quotes and interprets Isaiah 53, not as a matter of suffering the Father's wrath, but rather suffering persecution at the hands of wicked men. The only thing Protestants can really do is fixate on an incorrect interpretation of verse 24, thinking that to "bear sins" means to have the Father punish Jesus in our place, but that's not what this phrase means nor does the context support it.
Since there were no chapters in the original text of the Pope's letter, there's no need to cut off the thought at the end of chapter 2, since the Pope continues on with the same theme:
3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.
Continuing with the "be subject to" theme, the Pope gives the example of how a woman properly submitting to the unjust treatment of her husband can by her humility win her husband to Christ. The Pope went onto summarize: "Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing ... But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed." (v9,14). Note how the phrase "for this you were called" appears also in 2:21, again teaching that not repaying evil for evil is how you gain God's favor. This is identical to what Our Lord taught on the Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake" (Mt 5:10). Jesus Himself was Blessed because we was persecuted for righteousness' sake.
Indeed, this "let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good" (4:19) theme is found throughout the Pope's Letter, since "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble" (1 Pt 5:5-6). Clearly there is a plain and united theme about meritorious suffering running throughout, none of which involves suffering God's wrath.
So the question is, are Protestants going to listen to the Pope as to what Isaiah 53 really means?
Upvote
0
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: In what way did Jesus become "a curse" for us? (More problems with Penal Substitution)
In what way did Jesus become "a curse" for us? (More problems with Penal Substitution)
Frequent readers of this blog know that there isn't any good Biblical evidence for the Protestant heresy of Penal Substitution. And because of that, they're forced to desperately cling to whatever they can to attempt to justify their error. One of the few primary texts they appeal to is Galatians 3:13, which speaks of Jesus being made "a curse" for us.
Everyone can agree that it's not enough to just make an assertion, especially on a disputed text. Instead, some actual exegesis must be done and an actual argument must be made. I'll say right off the bat that Protestantism doesn't have a leg to stand on with this verse, so all they can do is desperately assert that "curse" here means something along the lines of Jesus being eternally cut off from the Father and suffering the Father's Wrath. But if that kind of exegesis was valid, then the Arians would win the day when Jesus said "The Father is greater than I," since the Arians can simply insist this can only mean Jesus is inferior to the Father in every way.
So with the Protestant desperation is clearly established I can go onto show how real exegesis is done.
First consider the passage in question:
12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” - 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
The context is that of justification, particularly noting that the Mosaic Law is not what saves, and that in fact Jesus save us from it. Before saying any more, let's look at Paul's quote from Deuteronomy 21:
22 And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.
At first glance this can seem pretty harsh, since the text comes off as implying that Jesus was indeed cursed by God. But the catch is that we cannot just make up our definitions of what "cursed by God" here means. So unless there's a compelling reason to think this curse refers to suffering eternal wrath, then one is not free to simply assert this as fact.
The Church Fathers, from what I could find, didn't comment on this text in detail, but they were clear that this did not mean Jesus was in any sense spiritually cursed by God nor that Jesus endured the Father's wrath. Instead, the Church Fathers maintained that the 'curse' here was the curse of a humiliating death, and that's where the Biblical data points to also. This is plainly what Deuteronomy 21:22-23 is talking about, a capital punishment for grave sinners. And this makes perfect sense in light of the fact this style of execution took place a few times in the OT (Josh 8:28-29; 10:26-27), and the lesson is that crucifixion is a humiliating way to die. The implication is that anyone who suffers that way must be under God's displeasure. Thus, in short, Jesus 'became a curse' in that He endured a humiliating death by crucifixion. But there's more.
Now we can turn back to Galatians 3:13-14 and draw out a few key details. First note that Paul says Jesus "redeemed" us from the curse of the Law, meaning His work functioned as a redemption, a pay-off price, and not a transfer of punishment. This is crucial and not an irrelevant detail. So, reading the grammar properly, Jesus endured the curse of crucifixion, and this functioned as a redemption price that offset/paid the price of another curse, the curse of the Law.
Next notice why Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the Law: so that the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles. This indicates that the real problem at hand was that the Law was preventing salvation from reaching the Gentiles, and thus the Law had to be addressed. And thus Christ's death functioned as a way of breaking down the Mosaic Law, and not about some generic taking of the Father's Wrath for mankind's sins. Consider the following paralle texts:
Hebrews 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Notice the three-fold theme in each text: redemption, the Mosaic Law being removed, so that adoption can result. Basically, the Mosaic Law (Covenant) was violated by Israel's unfaithfulness, and as a result this was stalling God's plan to fulfill His promise to Abraham, namely that he would be spiritual father of the Jews and Gentiles. Since the Law was violated, it had to be atoned for, and that's what Christ's death accomplished as far as being "under the Law" was concerned.
Now consider the anti-type motif, where Jesus is prefigured in the OT stories but in the opposite way you'd expect. For example, John 3:14 says: “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.” This recalls Numbers 21:4-9. Clearly, Jesus doesn’t correspond directly to a serpent (of all possible animals, since the serpent corresponds to Satan!). So this means Jesus can be prefigured in a way contrary to how Jesus should be seen. Now consider Deuteronomy 21:22, which says: “if a man has committed a crime punishable by death,” yet clearly Jesus didn’t commit a civil crime punishable by death, so the full horror of this statute wouldn’t even technically hold it’s force (an innocent man being unjustly killed undermines the statute). Not to mention, the statute is not saying that a person hung on a tree has the Father pouring out His wrath on their soul, suffering hellfire at that moment. And surely this law was not originally written and understood to mean some day the Messiah would be murdered by Crucifixion by a foreign army. Thus, there is good reason to see Jesus being 'cursed' as sort of unjust curse or anti-curse, since the whole point of this penalty was for the State to condemn truly guilty people, and Jesus should never have had to endure this. And this anti-type lens is further proven by the fact that every time the Apostles publicly preached on the subject of the Crucifixion in Acts, they always made a sharp distinction between Jesus being unjustly killed and hung on a tree by the Jews, versus God's vindication in rescuing and resurrecting Jesus for the injustice (Acts 2:23-24; 3:15; 3:10; 5:30-31; 10:39-40; 13:28-30).
I think this just about covers the main bases. I believe this approach I've taken completely invalidates the desperate claim that the term "curse" necessitates that Jesus was spiritually cursed and cut off from the Father. If Protestants want to push that error, they'll have to address these points I made, and I don't think they can.
In what way did Jesus become "a curse" for us? (More problems with Penal Substitution)
Frequent readers of this blog know that there isn't any good Biblical evidence for the Protestant heresy of Penal Substitution. And because of that, they're forced to desperately cling to whatever they can to attempt to justify their error. One of the few primary texts they appeal to is Galatians 3:13, which speaks of Jesus being made "a curse" for us.
Everyone can agree that it's not enough to just make an assertion, especially on a disputed text. Instead, some actual exegesis must be done and an actual argument must be made. I'll say right off the bat that Protestantism doesn't have a leg to stand on with this verse, so all they can do is desperately assert that "curse" here means something along the lines of Jesus being eternally cut off from the Father and suffering the Father's Wrath. But if that kind of exegesis was valid, then the Arians would win the day when Jesus said "The Father is greater than I," since the Arians can simply insist this can only mean Jesus is inferior to the Father in every way.
So with the Protestant desperation is clearly established I can go onto show how real exegesis is done.
First consider the passage in question:
12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” - 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
The context is that of justification, particularly noting that the Mosaic Law is not what saves, and that in fact Jesus save us from it. Before saying any more, let's look at Paul's quote from Deuteronomy 21:
22 And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.
At first glance this can seem pretty harsh, since the text comes off as implying that Jesus was indeed cursed by God. But the catch is that we cannot just make up our definitions of what "cursed by God" here means. So unless there's a compelling reason to think this curse refers to suffering eternal wrath, then one is not free to simply assert this as fact.
The Church Fathers, from what I could find, didn't comment on this text in detail, but they were clear that this did not mean Jesus was in any sense spiritually cursed by God nor that Jesus endured the Father's wrath. Instead, the Church Fathers maintained that the 'curse' here was the curse of a humiliating death, and that's where the Biblical data points to also. This is plainly what Deuteronomy 21:22-23 is talking about, a capital punishment for grave sinners. And this makes perfect sense in light of the fact this style of execution took place a few times in the OT (Josh 8:28-29; 10:26-27), and the lesson is that crucifixion is a humiliating way to die. The implication is that anyone who suffers that way must be under God's displeasure. Thus, in short, Jesus 'became a curse' in that He endured a humiliating death by crucifixion. But there's more.
Now we can turn back to Galatians 3:13-14 and draw out a few key details. First note that Paul says Jesus "redeemed" us from the curse of the Law, meaning His work functioned as a redemption, a pay-off price, and not a transfer of punishment. This is crucial and not an irrelevant detail. So, reading the grammar properly, Jesus endured the curse of crucifixion, and this functioned as a redemption price that offset/paid the price of another curse, the curse of the Law.
Next notice why Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the Law: so that the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles. This indicates that the real problem at hand was that the Law was preventing salvation from reaching the Gentiles, and thus the Law had to be addressed. And thus Christ's death functioned as a way of breaking down the Mosaic Law, and not about some generic taking of the Father's Wrath for mankind's sins. Consider the following paralle texts:
Hebrews 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Notice the three-fold theme in each text: redemption, the Mosaic Law being removed, so that adoption can result. Basically, the Mosaic Law (Covenant) was violated by Israel's unfaithfulness, and as a result this was stalling God's plan to fulfill His promise to Abraham, namely that he would be spiritual father of the Jews and Gentiles. Since the Law was violated, it had to be atoned for, and that's what Christ's death accomplished as far as being "under the Law" was concerned.
Now consider the anti-type motif, where Jesus is prefigured in the OT stories but in the opposite way you'd expect. For example, John 3:14 says: “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.” This recalls Numbers 21:4-9. Clearly, Jesus doesn’t correspond directly to a serpent (of all possible animals, since the serpent corresponds to Satan!). So this means Jesus can be prefigured in a way contrary to how Jesus should be seen. Now consider Deuteronomy 21:22, which says: “if a man has committed a crime punishable by death,” yet clearly Jesus didn’t commit a civil crime punishable by death, so the full horror of this statute wouldn’t even technically hold it’s force (an innocent man being unjustly killed undermines the statute). Not to mention, the statute is not saying that a person hung on a tree has the Father pouring out His wrath on their soul, suffering hellfire at that moment. And surely this law was not originally written and understood to mean some day the Messiah would be murdered by Crucifixion by a foreign army. Thus, there is good reason to see Jesus being 'cursed' as sort of unjust curse or anti-curse, since the whole point of this penalty was for the State to condemn truly guilty people, and Jesus should never have had to endure this. And this anti-type lens is further proven by the fact that every time the Apostles publicly preached on the subject of the Crucifixion in Acts, they always made a sharp distinction between Jesus being unjustly killed and hung on a tree by the Jews, versus God's vindication in rescuing and resurrecting Jesus for the injustice (Acts 2:23-24; 3:15; 3:10; 5:30-31; 10:39-40; 13:28-30).
I think this just about covers the main bases. I believe this approach I've taken completely invalidates the desperate claim that the term "curse" necessitates that Jesus was spiritually cursed and cut off from the Father. If Protestants want to push that error, they'll have to address these points I made, and I don't think they can.
Upvote
0
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: When Jesus said "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" was Jesus suffering the Father's Eternal Wrath? (More problems with Penal Substitution)
When Jesus said "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" was Jesus suffering the Father's Eternal Wrath? (More problems with Penal Substitution)
I have said for a long time that one of the strongest arguments against Penal Substitution is the fact that nowhere does the Bible state that Jesus suffered the Father's Wrath. And this is especially true when we examine the very place we'd most likely expect to find it, in the Crucifixion accounts in the Four Gospels. Instead, what we see plainly conveyed is that Jesus was falsely accused and put into the hands of wicked men who murdered Him by crucifixion. Obviously, God foresaw that this monstrous crime would take place, but in love He sent His Son to earth anyway, and God turned this monstrous crime on it's head, making it a means of Salvation.
In this post I will go over the Crucifixion accounts in the Four Gospels, along with a brief look at how the Crucifixion was preached in Acts. I will show that nobody in good will and fairness can claim to find any reasonable proof for this Protestant heresy in the place it should be most clearly taught.
I think the best place to start this investigation as to what happened at Calvary is to look at what Jesus said after the Resurrection to some of His disciples:
O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27) This text is hugely important, because what it is saying is that the Old Testament prophecies concerning Jesus had played themselves out in Luke's Gospel. This means Jesus' suffering and glory that he mentions here was likewise recorded in the prior sections of Luke. So if Penal Substitution is the true and central meaning of the Cross as Protestants insist, then we'd better see the Father pouring out the Wrath we deserved on the head of His Son. But that's precisely what we don't find!
Leading up to the Crucifixion, Jesus tells the Apostles three different times what would happen to Him:
(1) From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31-32; Luke 9:21-22
(2) But I tell you that Elijah [John the Baptist] has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.” … 22 As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, 23 and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.” And they were greatly distressed. Matthew 17:12, 22-23; Mark 9:30-31
(3) And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, 18 “See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death 19 and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.” Matthew 20:17; Mark 10:32-34
Notice that what is plainly stated is that Jesus would be captured and flogged and crucified and killed at the hands of the chief priests and Romans. There is not a peep of Jesus going to endure the Father's Wrath in our place. Even after the Resurrection, Luke 24-6-8 records the angel greeting the Apostles in the empty tomb: "Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” 8 And they remembered his words."
The lesson is clear for anyone without an agenda: what happened to Jesus at the Crucifixion was a murder at the hands of men, and this along with the Resurrection was foretold in the Old Testament. Now to examine the Crucifixion accounts themselves, since it's possible that these prophecies didn't include all the details, including the most important detail of the Father pouring out His Wrath on His Beloved Son.
When Jesus said "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" was Jesus suffering the Father's Eternal Wrath? (More problems with Penal Substitution)
I have said for a long time that one of the strongest arguments against Penal Substitution is the fact that nowhere does the Bible state that Jesus suffered the Father's Wrath. And this is especially true when we examine the very place we'd most likely expect to find it, in the Crucifixion accounts in the Four Gospels. Instead, what we see plainly conveyed is that Jesus was falsely accused and put into the hands of wicked men who murdered Him by crucifixion. Obviously, God foresaw that this monstrous crime would take place, but in love He sent His Son to earth anyway, and God turned this monstrous crime on it's head, making it a means of Salvation.
In this post I will go over the Crucifixion accounts in the Four Gospels, along with a brief look at how the Crucifixion was preached in Acts. I will show that nobody in good will and fairness can claim to find any reasonable proof for this Protestant heresy in the place it should be most clearly taught.
I think the best place to start this investigation as to what happened at Calvary is to look at what Jesus said after the Resurrection to some of His disciples:
O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27) This text is hugely important, because what it is saying is that the Old Testament prophecies concerning Jesus had played themselves out in Luke's Gospel. This means Jesus' suffering and glory that he mentions here was likewise recorded in the prior sections of Luke. So if Penal Substitution is the true and central meaning of the Cross as Protestants insist, then we'd better see the Father pouring out the Wrath we deserved on the head of His Son. But that's precisely what we don't find!
Leading up to the Crucifixion, Jesus tells the Apostles three different times what would happen to Him:
(1) From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31-32; Luke 9:21-22
(2) But I tell you that Elijah [John the Baptist] has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.” … 22 As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, 23 and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.” And they were greatly distressed. Matthew 17:12, 22-23; Mark 9:30-31
(3) And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, 18 “See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death 19 and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.” Matthew 20:17; Mark 10:32-34
Notice that what is plainly stated is that Jesus would be captured and flogged and crucified and killed at the hands of the chief priests and Romans. There is not a peep of Jesus going to endure the Father's Wrath in our place. Even after the Resurrection, Luke 24-6-8 records the angel greeting the Apostles in the empty tomb: "Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” 8 And they remembered his words."
The lesson is clear for anyone without an agenda: what happened to Jesus at the Crucifixion was a murder at the hands of men, and this along with the Resurrection was foretold in the Old Testament. Now to examine the Crucifixion accounts themselves, since it's possible that these prophecies didn't include all the details, including the most important detail of the Father pouring out His Wrath on His Beloved Son.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: When Jesus said "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" was Jesus suffering the Father's Eternal Wrath? (More problems with Penal Substitution)
Since Matthew 27, Mark 15, and Luke 23 record basically the same details, I'll only post Luke's Crucifixion account:
33 And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. 34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. 35 And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” 36 The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine 37 and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” 38 There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.”
39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
44 It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 while the sun’s light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last. 47 Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, saying, “Certainly this man was innocent!” 48 And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts. 49 And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things. Taking all of this at face value, there is no indication Jesus was enduring the Father's Wrath. All that's mentioned are physical tortures inflicted by wicked men. Luke here clearly emphasizes Jesus' innocence while undergoing a murder (41, 47-48). This is all very odd if Jesus is enduring some kind of invisible spiritual torments from His Father taking place during this same time.
Some Protestants say (in desperation) that the "darkness" that came over the land signified God's anger upon Jesus. But where does the text really say this? Quite simply, God was indeed angry, but it was not His Son He was angry at, but rather the cosmic tragedy of having His Son murdered. People seeing this would know something is wrong, and indeed many seeing these things (rightly) concluded that Jesus was unjustly put to death, and they "returned home beating their breasts" in lamentation.
It should be noted here that while Luke records Jesus as saying "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit," the accounts in Matthew and Mark leave this out and record another saying of Jesus, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46-47; Mark 15:34-35) Out of complete desperation, many great Protestant scholars and apologists will latch onto this "forsaken me" comment as their chief proof that Jesus was being spiritually forsaken by the Father, having the Father pour out His Fury on Jesus with the wrath that our sins deserve in hell. But the text says nothing of this, and the context is oblivious to it. In fact, the context goes so far as to record that some of the Jews thought that Jesus was calling on Elijah's intercession when Jesus said this, which is the least important detail we need to know about the Crucifixion.
But that's not all. The plain and simple fact is, Jesus was simply calling to mind Psalm 22:1, which beings: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me?" This is a Messianic Psalm about how God allows his beloved to undergo persecution, but that in the end God will rescue them and make everything okay. What Jesus was doing was called Intoning the Psalm, similar to how when we hear "Our Father, Who art in Heaven," we know the priest is talking specifically about the Lord's Prayer. Now consider some noteworthy verses from this Psalm:
7 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; 8 “He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”
16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet
17 I can count all my bones, they stare and gloat over me; 18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.
24 For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him. Consider how these details perfectly match the Crucifixion accounts. They mocked Jesus and challenged God to rescue Him if in fact He was the Messiah. They clearly "pierced his hands and feet" with nails. And all four Gospels record that they cast lots for his clothing. Plainly, this entire Psalm is a prophecy about the suffering of Jesus. And this has nothing to do with the Father's Wrath. Indeed, some Protestant scholars say that God 'Gid his face' from Jesus, and yet verse 24 of this Psalm explicitly says God did not hide His face. So you can see the desperation these Protestant scholars are in.
And finally, if the "forsaken me" quote is in fact the crucial text showing us that Jesus endured the Father's Wrath, then someone forgot to tell Luke (and John) that, for Luke (and John) don't even mention this! So if Protestants are right, that means that Luke (and John) left out the most important detail! Instead, Luke records Jesus as saying something a lot 'softer', "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." The only hope a Protestant has at that point is to say "into your hands" is another way of saying "forsaken me," which is just too absurd to take seriously.
The only other account to consider is the Gospel of John, Chapter 19:16-29. Since most of this text is the same as the other Gospels, including John explicitly linking the dividing garments and casting lots to Psalm 22 (Jn 19:23-24), I'll only cite the last part:
So the soldiers did these things, 25 but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” 29 A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. As with the other Gospel writers, the text is silent about any of the Father's Wrath. But John certainly took the time to talk about Jesus having the alertness to talk to John about entrusting His Mother to him.
As for verses 28-30, many Protestants will point to Jesus' words "It is finished" and come to the erroneous conclusion that Jesus 'paid it all' and that if we attempt to do anything for our salvation we are rejecting "the finished work of Christ." I address this error in another post (Here). Simply stated, this 'finished' in verse 28 corresponds to the "fulfilling of Scripture" regarding "I thirst." It turns out John was appealing to another Psalm very similar to Psalm 22, in this case Psalm 69:21, “for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink.” Psalm 69 was about David being persecuted unjustly by the Jews, which is a Messianic prophecy for Jesus being persecuted unjustly by the Jews. Also consider that John quotes Psalm 69 in regards to “zeal for your house will consume me” (2:17) and “They hated me without a cause” (15:25).
So in the end, the Protestant should be quite embarrassed to see the non-existent evidence of Penal Substitution in the Gospels and the Gospel accounts.
The one last nail in the coffin evidence to consider is how the Apostles preached about the Crucifixion in the book of Acts. Jason Stellman records the findings in an article devoted to this topic, and the verses he cites I now re-post in brief:
Peter said: “. . . this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.” (2:23-24)
Peter again: “. . . the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses” (3:13-15).
and again: “. . . let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead - by him this man is standing before you well.” (4:10-11).
and again: “The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree” (5:10).
and again: “. . . we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day. . . .” (10:37-40).
Now Paul: “. . . And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead” (13:27-30). This is utterly astonishing, for in every single public preaching of the Gospel the Apostles did in Acts, there is no mention of the Father's Wrath, which is the heart of the Cross according to Protestants. Instead, we repeatedly see a sharp distinction between what man did and what God did: they killed Jesus, but God raised Him.
Now why would Protestants insist on such an unbiblical doctrine? The reason is because Penal Substitution is a crucial part of Justification by Faith Alone, so if Psub falls, so does their pet doctrine. And that's not an easy thing to let go, for it means the Reformation was an entire lie.
It's really posts like these that vindicate Catholicism as the true religion of the Bible.
Since Matthew 27, Mark 15, and Luke 23 record basically the same details, I'll only post Luke's Crucifixion account:
33 And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. 34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. 35 And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” 36 The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine 37 and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” 38 There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.”
39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
44 It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 while the sun’s light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last. 47 Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, saying, “Certainly this man was innocent!” 48 And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts. 49 And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things. Taking all of this at face value, there is no indication Jesus was enduring the Father's Wrath. All that's mentioned are physical tortures inflicted by wicked men. Luke here clearly emphasizes Jesus' innocence while undergoing a murder (41, 47-48). This is all very odd if Jesus is enduring some kind of invisible spiritual torments from His Father taking place during this same time.
Some Protestants say (in desperation) that the "darkness" that came over the land signified God's anger upon Jesus. But where does the text really say this? Quite simply, God was indeed angry, but it was not His Son He was angry at, but rather the cosmic tragedy of having His Son murdered. People seeing this would know something is wrong, and indeed many seeing these things (rightly) concluded that Jesus was unjustly put to death, and they "returned home beating their breasts" in lamentation.
It should be noted here that while Luke records Jesus as saying "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit," the accounts in Matthew and Mark leave this out and record another saying of Jesus, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46-47; Mark 15:34-35) Out of complete desperation, many great Protestant scholars and apologists will latch onto this "forsaken me" comment as their chief proof that Jesus was being spiritually forsaken by the Father, having the Father pour out His Fury on Jesus with the wrath that our sins deserve in hell. But the text says nothing of this, and the context is oblivious to it. In fact, the context goes so far as to record that some of the Jews thought that Jesus was calling on Elijah's intercession when Jesus said this, which is the least important detail we need to know about the Crucifixion.
But that's not all. The plain and simple fact is, Jesus was simply calling to mind Psalm 22:1, which beings: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me?" This is a Messianic Psalm about how God allows his beloved to undergo persecution, but that in the end God will rescue them and make everything okay. What Jesus was doing was called Intoning the Psalm, similar to how when we hear "Our Father, Who art in Heaven," we know the priest is talking specifically about the Lord's Prayer. Now consider some noteworthy verses from this Psalm:
7 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; 8 “He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”
16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet
17 I can count all my bones, they stare and gloat over me; 18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.
24 For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him. Consider how these details perfectly match the Crucifixion accounts. They mocked Jesus and challenged God to rescue Him if in fact He was the Messiah. They clearly "pierced his hands and feet" with nails. And all four Gospels record that they cast lots for his clothing. Plainly, this entire Psalm is a prophecy about the suffering of Jesus. And this has nothing to do with the Father's Wrath. Indeed, some Protestant scholars say that God 'Gid his face' from Jesus, and yet verse 24 of this Psalm explicitly says God did not hide His face. So you can see the desperation these Protestant scholars are in.
And finally, if the "forsaken me" quote is in fact the crucial text showing us that Jesus endured the Father's Wrath, then someone forgot to tell Luke (and John) that, for Luke (and John) don't even mention this! So if Protestants are right, that means that Luke (and John) left out the most important detail! Instead, Luke records Jesus as saying something a lot 'softer', "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." The only hope a Protestant has at that point is to say "into your hands" is another way of saying "forsaken me," which is just too absurd to take seriously.
The only other account to consider is the Gospel of John, Chapter 19:16-29. Since most of this text is the same as the other Gospels, including John explicitly linking the dividing garments and casting lots to Psalm 22 (Jn 19:23-24), I'll only cite the last part:
So the soldiers did these things, 25 but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” 29 A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. As with the other Gospel writers, the text is silent about any of the Father's Wrath. But John certainly took the time to talk about Jesus having the alertness to talk to John about entrusting His Mother to him.
As for verses 28-30, many Protestants will point to Jesus' words "It is finished" and come to the erroneous conclusion that Jesus 'paid it all' and that if we attempt to do anything for our salvation we are rejecting "the finished work of Christ." I address this error in another post (Here). Simply stated, this 'finished' in verse 28 corresponds to the "fulfilling of Scripture" regarding "I thirst." It turns out John was appealing to another Psalm very similar to Psalm 22, in this case Psalm 69:21, “for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink.” Psalm 69 was about David being persecuted unjustly by the Jews, which is a Messianic prophecy for Jesus being persecuted unjustly by the Jews. Also consider that John quotes Psalm 69 in regards to “zeal for your house will consume me” (2:17) and “They hated me without a cause” (15:25).
So in the end, the Protestant should be quite embarrassed to see the non-existent evidence of Penal Substitution in the Gospels and the Gospel accounts.
The one last nail in the coffin evidence to consider is how the Apostles preached about the Crucifixion in the book of Acts. Jason Stellman records the findings in an article devoted to this topic, and the verses he cites I now re-post in brief:
Peter said: “. . . this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.” (2:23-24)
Peter again: “. . . the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses” (3:13-15).
and again: “. . . let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead - by him this man is standing before you well.” (4:10-11).
and again: “The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree” (5:10).
and again: “. . . we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day. . . .” (10:37-40).
Now Paul: “. . . And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead” (13:27-30). This is utterly astonishing, for in every single public preaching of the Gospel the Apostles did in Acts, there is no mention of the Father's Wrath, which is the heart of the Cross according to Protestants. Instead, we repeatedly see a sharp distinction between what man did and what God did: they killed Jesus, but God raised Him.
Now why would Protestants insist on such an unbiblical doctrine? The reason is because Penal Substitution is a crucial part of Justification by Faith Alone, so if Psub falls, so does their pet doctrine. And that's not an easy thing to let go, for it means the Reformation was an entire lie.
It's really posts like these that vindicate Catholicism as the true religion of the Bible.
Upvote
0
Micah888
Well-Known Member
With all due respect your arguments are specious. You have dismissed Psalm 22:1 as though it was merely a recollection on the cross, with no real meaning for Christ's intense agony. But Scripture tells us over and over again -- and Christ Himself told us -- that He SUFFERED for our sins. Since His offering was of infinite value, His sufferings were of infinite magnitude. And they are summed up in Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, etc.
Everyone needs to ask themselves a few pertinent questions to determine whether penal substitutionary atonement is precisely Bible doctrine or not :
1. Is there a divine penalty for sins? [PENAL]
2. Is God's wrath against sin a cosmic fact?
3. Did Christ die for His own sins or for the sins of the world? [SUBSTITUTION]
4. Had Christ not offered Himself voluntarily to become the Lamb of God, would each and every sinner have had to pay the penalty for their sins in eternal Hell?
Upvote
0
GingerBeer
Cool and refreshing with a kick!
- Mar 26, 2017
- 3,511
- 1,348
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
The ten passages your post cites do not say a thing about penal, substitution, or atonement.
Upvote
0
GingerBeer
Cool and refreshing with a kick!
- Mar 26, 2017
- 3,511
- 1,348
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Discipline comes from Father's love not from wrath. Jesus suffered for our redemption. Jesus' chastisement is the Father's loving discipline applied as correction. What does it correct? Sin, obviously. Whose sins? Human beings' sins. So what is Isaiah 43 teaching? It's teaching what's explained in Hebrews where it is written:
Hebrews 12:1 What a cloud of innumerable witnesses surround us! So, let us be rid of every encumbrance, and especially of sin, to persevere in running the race marked out before us.
2 Let us look to Jesus, the founder of our faith, who will bring it to completion. For the sake of the joy reserved for him, he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and then, sat at the right of the throne of God. 3 Think of Jesus, who suffered so many contradictions from evil people, and you will not be discouraged or grow weary. 4 Have you already shed your blood in the struggle against sin?
5 Do not forget the comforting words that Wisdom addresses to you as children: My son, pay attention when the Lord corrects you and do not be discouraged when he punishes you. 6 For the Lord corrects those he loves and chastises everyone he accepts as a son. 7 What you endure, is in order to correct you. God treats you like sons, and what son is not corrected by his father? 8 If you were without correction, which has been received by all, (as is fitting for sons), you would not be sons, but bastards. 9 Besides, when our parents, according to the flesh, corrected us, we respected them. How much more should we be subject to the Father of spirits, to have life? 10 Our parents corrected us as they saw fit, with a view to this very short life; but God corrects us, for our own good, that we may share his holiness.
11 All correction is painful at the moment, rather than pleasant; later, it brings the fruit of peace, that is, holiness, to those who have been trained by it.
12 Lift up, then, your drooping hands, and strengthen your trembling knees; 13 make level the ways for your feet, so that the lame may not be disabled, but healed.
Jesus suffered for our sake but he suffered at the hands of wicked men (Acts 2:22-24) not at the hand of an angry wrathful Father in heaven.2 Let us look to Jesus, the founder of our faith, who will bring it to completion. For the sake of the joy reserved for him, he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and then, sat at the right of the throne of God. 3 Think of Jesus, who suffered so many contradictions from evil people, and you will not be discouraged or grow weary. 4 Have you already shed your blood in the struggle against sin?
5 Do not forget the comforting words that Wisdom addresses to you as children: My son, pay attention when the Lord corrects you and do not be discouraged when he punishes you. 6 For the Lord corrects those he loves and chastises everyone he accepts as a son. 7 What you endure, is in order to correct you. God treats you like sons, and what son is not corrected by his father? 8 If you were without correction, which has been received by all, (as is fitting for sons), you would not be sons, but bastards. 9 Besides, when our parents, according to the flesh, corrected us, we respected them. How much more should we be subject to the Father of spirits, to have life? 10 Our parents corrected us as they saw fit, with a view to this very short life; but God corrects us, for our own good, that we may share his holiness.
11 All correction is painful at the moment, rather than pleasant; later, it brings the fruit of peace, that is, holiness, to those who have been trained by it.
12 Lift up, then, your drooping hands, and strengthen your trembling knees; 13 make level the ways for your feet, so that the lame may not be disabled, but healed.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,438
- 26,879
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
1) Does Scripture say that death is God's punishment to us because of our sins? Or does Scripture instead speak of death as the consequence of sin? The Apostle writes, "The wages of sin is death", not the punishment, but the wages.
If God uses death as punishment for sin, then Christ's death--being satisfactory to God--ought to mean the end of mortality then and there; after all if our sins are forgiven us and Christ has paid the price for our sin on our behalf then no more punishment is required; yes? Therefore the punishment of death for sin no longer applies. And yet, that's not the case.
Scripture says death is the weapon of the evil one, not God:
"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil," - Hebrews 2:14
See what the Scripture says, that Christ became man that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death. The one who has the power of death isn't God, but the devil. Christ saves us from death, from the devil; by overcoming death and the devil.
Therefore is death the punishment for sin, or is death part of the reality of this fallen, sinful, broken world that God, in His infinite mercy, is redeeming and rescuing? That God in Jesus is saving and rescuing the world, and He does this by Christ's life, death, and resurrection.
2) What is God's wrath? Is it that God experiences pathos, therefore God is in possession of passions and libido by which His emotional state can flicker with the same capriciousness as it does us fallen wretches? No, of course not. So what is the wrath of God? Well what do we read? "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." (Romans 1:18) How is God's wrath revealed? The natural man beholds some of the glory of God in creation, and yet worships not the Creator but turns toward the created, toward idols, and religiosity of the human imagination; the wrath of God is revealed in the stark reality of human sinfulness in contrast to God's righteousness which is found in His Law. So, yes, the wrath of God is revealed--and when sinners come face to face with the Law of God it acts as a mirror, showing forth that sin is sin and the unrighteousness of man.
To behold God in the Law is to behold God in the fear, despair, and trembling of one's own sins. Indeed, what does the Apostle say? "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:19-20)
So how is God's wrath revealed? In the Law, for by the Law He judges the world and all are found sinful, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" both Jew and Gentile alike. Therefore all stand condemned under the Law.
But this is not the final word, this is merely what the preaching of the Law means: That we are sinners, and stand condemned by our own sin, "For this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world and men loved darkness more than the light, for their deeds were wicked" (John 3:19)
3) Christ died for the sins of the world--no one disagrees with this. Indeed it is precisely what this means that is of chief interest when we talk about these things. But much presumption is given here, that either Christ died for His own sins or for our sins; that is to say, that Christ if He did not die as punishment for His own sins must have died as a punishment for our sins. This is a false dichotomy. For the presumption is uncalled for.
4) Again we come to punishment. And it is deeply unsettling that it must always come down to punishment, rather than grace. It is indeed true that apart from Christ we are most definitely dead and lost in our sins and there is, before us, only the long and open maw of death and hell. But you speak of hell as a punishment from God; when it is not God who wills man to hell, such is the devil's desire and, ultimately, the desire of fallen man. But, indeed, apart from Christ none else makes sense either: since apart from Christ there is no creation of the heavens and the earth, there is no man, woman, child, or beast, or star, mountain, river, valley, or sea; and there is nothing and there is nothing to heal. For indeed what, again, does the Apostle say? "All things were created by Him and for Him." (Colossians 1:16).
Our Lord Jesus Christ is not some cosmic punching bag, He is the Redeemer and Savior of the world. The One through whom all things were made, for whom all things exist, and by whom all things will be healed.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
Similar threads
