Post by Jesse Morrell on May 11, 2009 0:44:59 GMT -5
Jesus Did Not Suffer the Penalty of the law, nor satisfy God's wrath, nor was He separated from the Father...
Leave it to me to publicly go against popular opinion, but hear me out....
The "governmental view" of the atonement makes so much sense to me, but more and more the "penal substitution" view makes no sense at all. Let me explain.
UNDERSTANDING THE ATONEMENT
Retributive justice strictly required the eternal torment of the sinner. The penalty of the law could not have been satisfied in the atonement because the penalty of the law was eternal hell for sinners. The penalty of the law did not require the death of anyone, but it required the eternal death of the guilty. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Eze. 18:4, 20) and "they shall be punished with everlasting fire from the presence of the Lord." (2 Thes. 1:9) The penalty of the law did not require the death of the sinner “or a substitute”, but strictly and only the death of the guilty sinner. That is true retributive justice - treating a moral being according to their character. Jesus did not deserve to die and sinners do not deserve to live. Therefore retributive justice is not at all satisfied in atonement and forgiveness.
“He did not endure eternal death….eternal death was the penalty of the law...No man can possibly hold that the Redeemer endured eternal sorrow; and no man, therefore, who believes that the penalty of the law is eternal death, can consistently maintain that he endured the literal penalty of the law.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 236-237)
Retributive justice could not have been satisfied in the atonement, because the innocent died and the guilty is allowed to live. But public justice required that God demonstrates His regard for His law, so that He could pardon mankind (set aside their punishment) without encouraging sin throughout the rest of His moral universe. The well-being of the universe depends upon God maintaining the authority and influence of His law over all moral beings. God must discourage sin, either by executing the penalty of the law upon transgressors, or through an alternative means. The atonement is a substitute for the penalty of the law, not the actual penalty itself. The purpose of penalty is to maintain the influence of government through a declaration of the Ruler's regard for the law. If this purpose can be satisfied through an alternative means, the penalty can be remitted. The blood atonement is that alternative. With the shedding of blood, there can be the remission of sins. God can remit our penalty of eternal hell, because Christ’s blood atonement has substituted it and has fulfilled its purpose. God has manifested His regard for His law, through the atonement of Christ, just as equally as He would have manifested it, had He executed the penalty of the law upon sinners. Therefore God can remit our penalty without weakening His law.
“The atonement is the substitute for the punishment threatened in the law; and was designed to answer the same ends of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity of the divine moral government, and the consistency of the divine conduct in legislation and execution.” Jonathon Edwards Jr. (The Necessity of the Atonement, p. 5-6)
“The atonement is a governmental expedient to sustain law without the execution of its penalty to the sinner.” Charles G. Finney (The Oberlin Evangelist; July 30, 1856; On the Atonement, p. 2)
“The atonement is something substituted in the place of the penalty of the law, which will answer the same ends as the punishment of the offender himself would. It is instead of punishment. It is something which will make it proper for the lawgiver to suspend or remit the literal execution of the penalty of the law, because the object or end of that penalty has been secured, or because something has been substituted for that which will answer the same purpose. In other words, there are certain ends proposed by the appointment of the penalty in case of violation of the law; and if these ends are secured, then the punishment may be remitted and the offender may be pardoned. That which will secure these ends is an atonement.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 244-145.)
Contrary to popular opinion, the atonement did not satisfy God's wrath. If His wrath was satisfied, we would all be born saved. Sinners would be saved from God’s wrath before they repent and believe. If Jesus satisfied God’s wrath at the cross, there would be no wrath for sinners to flee from today. God still has wrath after the atonement. Until a sinner is converted, they are under God’s wrath. Everyone who is sinning is under God’s wrath, even though Jesus Christ died for them already. The atonement did not appease His wrath, rather, the atonement was a necessary condition that makes it safe to God’s universe for Him to turn away from His wrath, when sinners repent and believe. The atonement was made for the forgiveness of sins, which is when God sets aside His wrath. The problem God had in forgiveness was governmental, not personal. It was not that His wrath needed to be satisfied because God was personally vindictive or needed anything in Himself or His nature appeased, but that His government throughout the universe needed to be maintained while He pardons mankind. He needed to find a way to set aside our punishment without weakening His law throughout His vast Kingdom. God was so loving and so wise that He refused to pardon mankind at the expense of the well-being of His universe. Therefore He required a blood sacrifice if He was going to remit our penalty. The atonement is not a picture of a wrathful God who needed personal satisfaction, but it is a picture of a loving God who wanted to maintain His government over the moral universe and pardon mankind at the same time.
“Is it not plain that the Father received the ransom, not because He himself required or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine government of the universe, and because man must be sanctified through the incarnation of the son of God?” Gregory of Nazianzus (yr 330-390)
“The problem was not with God as an offended party requiring vindictive satisfaction, but with God as a loving Moral Governor who desires to do justice to all His subjects.” Gordon Olson (The Kindness of God Our Savior, Published by Revival Theology Promotions, p. 68)
Some theologians “insist on presenting a vindictive God who demands a payment before He will forgive. Surely this is an obvious contradiction of Jesus’ parable on forgiveness, where the man was forgiven his debt solely on the basis of compassion – without payment of any kind! Certainly there were governmental considerations for God to weigh. There was the necessity to uphold the law and justify the Lawgiver in the issuance of a pardon in opposition to His words, ‘the soul that sinneth, it shall die.’ However, to in any way confuse God’s governmental role with His personal feelings is gross error. God always wanted to forgive… He needed only to find a way to do it wisely. George Otis. Jr. (The God They Never Knew, Published by Mott Media, p. 24)
SPIRITUALLY SEPERATED OR PROVISIONALLY ABANDONED?
Having briefly explained the atonement itself, I want to discuss in more depth one aspect of the atonement. Many theologians say that Jesus was "separated from His Father'. This usually is in the penal substitution view because they say that 'God cannot look upon sin and our sin was upon Jesus.' But Jesus was not literally a sinner; therefore there was no sinfulness to actually separate Him from God. Bearing our sin, to my understanding, simply meant he died on behalf of our sins.
'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me' does not imply that there was a spiritual separation, but that there was a provisionary abandonment. That is, the protection that the Father had over the son was removed. For example, they tried to stone Jesus many times but they could not, because His time had not yet come. But now, the Fathers protection was withheld, and in this sense was Jesus 'forsaken'. The rest of the Psalm that Jesus was quoted says, 'Why are you so far from helping me.' Jesus was 'forsaken', not in the sense that there was a spiritual separation between Him and the Father because of a transfer of sinfulness, but that the Father did not help or deliver His son from the hands of wicked men, but actually delivered Him into their hands, so that He could die on account of our sins.
This is from my booklet, 'The VICARIOUS ATONEMENT'
Jesus was provisionally forsaken or abandoned by God (Matt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34) but not relationally separated (Jn. 8:29) because of any sin (Hab. 1:13; 2 Cor. 6:14). He was always pleasing to His Father (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mk. 1:1; Lk. 3:22; Jn. 8:29; 2 Pet. 1:17), especially during the crucifixion (Isa. 53:10-11). But He was forsaken in the sense that the Father gave the Son over into the hands of wicked men to be crucified (Matt. 17:22; 26:35; Mk. 14:41; Lk. 24:7; Acts 2:23), when He lifted up the protection He previously had over the Son (Matt. 4:6; Lk. 4:11; Jn. 7:30; 10:31; 10:39). The Son was forsaken by the Father only in that the Father was 'far from helping' or delivering the Son (Ps. 22:1). Pilate had no power over Jesus except what the Father gave to Him (Jn. 19:11). It was wicked men who actually crucified Jesus (Mk. 12:7; 27:35; Mk. 15:24-25; Lk. 20:14-15; 23:33; 24:20; 24:7; Jn. 19:18, 23; Acts 2:23; 2:36; 4:10; 1 Thes. 2:14-15). The Apostle Creed says that Jesus 'suffered under Pontius Pilate'. That is because it was Pilate who 'delivered' Jesus to be 'crucified' (Matt. 27:26; Mk. 15:15; Lk. 24:7; Jn. 19:16). In this same way the Father can be said to be the one who bruised the Son (Isa. 53:10), or sacrificed the Son (Gen. 22:2) in the sense that the Father gave the Son over as an offering (Jn. 3:16), lifting up the protection that He once had over the Son, delivering His Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the people. As the hymn says, 'God, His Son not sparing, sent Him to die' God spared not His Son but delivered Him for all mankind (Acts 4:25; Rom. 8:32). The Father bruised the Son only in the sense that He made 'His soul an offering for sin' (Isa. 53:10), but not in the sense that the Father directly bruised and crucified Him, or that the Son was under the wrath of the Father.
Leave it to me to publicly go against popular opinion, but hear me out....
The "governmental view" of the atonement makes so much sense to me, but more and more the "penal substitution" view makes no sense at all. Let me explain.
UNDERSTANDING THE ATONEMENT
Retributive justice strictly required the eternal torment of the sinner. The penalty of the law could not have been satisfied in the atonement because the penalty of the law was eternal hell for sinners. The penalty of the law did not require the death of anyone, but it required the eternal death of the guilty. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Eze. 18:4, 20) and "they shall be punished with everlasting fire from the presence of the Lord." (2 Thes. 1:9) The penalty of the law did not require the death of the sinner “or a substitute”, but strictly and only the death of the guilty sinner. That is true retributive justice - treating a moral being according to their character. Jesus did not deserve to die and sinners do not deserve to live. Therefore retributive justice is not at all satisfied in atonement and forgiveness.
“He did not endure eternal death….eternal death was the penalty of the law...No man can possibly hold that the Redeemer endured eternal sorrow; and no man, therefore, who believes that the penalty of the law is eternal death, can consistently maintain that he endured the literal penalty of the law.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 236-237)
Retributive justice could not have been satisfied in the atonement, because the innocent died and the guilty is allowed to live. But public justice required that God demonstrates His regard for His law, so that He could pardon mankind (set aside their punishment) without encouraging sin throughout the rest of His moral universe. The well-being of the universe depends upon God maintaining the authority and influence of His law over all moral beings. God must discourage sin, either by executing the penalty of the law upon transgressors, or through an alternative means. The atonement is a substitute for the penalty of the law, not the actual penalty itself. The purpose of penalty is to maintain the influence of government through a declaration of the Ruler's regard for the law. If this purpose can be satisfied through an alternative means, the penalty can be remitted. The blood atonement is that alternative. With the shedding of blood, there can be the remission of sins. God can remit our penalty of eternal hell, because Christ’s blood atonement has substituted it and has fulfilled its purpose. God has manifested His regard for His law, through the atonement of Christ, just as equally as He would have manifested it, had He executed the penalty of the law upon sinners. Therefore God can remit our penalty without weakening His law.
“The atonement is the substitute for the punishment threatened in the law; and was designed to answer the same ends of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity of the divine moral government, and the consistency of the divine conduct in legislation and execution.” Jonathon Edwards Jr. (The Necessity of the Atonement, p. 5-6)
“The atonement is a governmental expedient to sustain law without the execution of its penalty to the sinner.” Charles G. Finney (The Oberlin Evangelist; July 30, 1856; On the Atonement, p. 2)
“The atonement is something substituted in the place of the penalty of the law, which will answer the same ends as the punishment of the offender himself would. It is instead of punishment. It is something which will make it proper for the lawgiver to suspend or remit the literal execution of the penalty of the law, because the object or end of that penalty has been secured, or because something has been substituted for that which will answer the same purpose. In other words, there are certain ends proposed by the appointment of the penalty in case of violation of the law; and if these ends are secured, then the punishment may be remitted and the offender may be pardoned. That which will secure these ends is an atonement.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 244-145.)
Contrary to popular opinion, the atonement did not satisfy God's wrath. If His wrath was satisfied, we would all be born saved. Sinners would be saved from God’s wrath before they repent and believe. If Jesus satisfied God’s wrath at the cross, there would be no wrath for sinners to flee from today. God still has wrath after the atonement. Until a sinner is converted, they are under God’s wrath. Everyone who is sinning is under God’s wrath, even though Jesus Christ died for them already. The atonement did not appease His wrath, rather, the atonement was a necessary condition that makes it safe to God’s universe for Him to turn away from His wrath, when sinners repent and believe. The atonement was made for the forgiveness of sins, which is when God sets aside His wrath. The problem God had in forgiveness was governmental, not personal. It was not that His wrath needed to be satisfied because God was personally vindictive or needed anything in Himself or His nature appeased, but that His government throughout the universe needed to be maintained while He pardons mankind. He needed to find a way to set aside our punishment without weakening His law throughout His vast Kingdom. God was so loving and so wise that He refused to pardon mankind at the expense of the well-being of His universe. Therefore He required a blood sacrifice if He was going to remit our penalty. The atonement is not a picture of a wrathful God who needed personal satisfaction, but it is a picture of a loving God who wanted to maintain His government over the moral universe and pardon mankind at the same time.
“Is it not plain that the Father received the ransom, not because He himself required or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine government of the universe, and because man must be sanctified through the incarnation of the son of God?” Gregory of Nazianzus (yr 330-390)
“The problem was not with God as an offended party requiring vindictive satisfaction, but with God as a loving Moral Governor who desires to do justice to all His subjects.” Gordon Olson (The Kindness of God Our Savior, Published by Revival Theology Promotions, p. 68)
Some theologians “insist on presenting a vindictive God who demands a payment before He will forgive. Surely this is an obvious contradiction of Jesus’ parable on forgiveness, where the man was forgiven his debt solely on the basis of compassion – without payment of any kind! Certainly there were governmental considerations for God to weigh. There was the necessity to uphold the law and justify the Lawgiver in the issuance of a pardon in opposition to His words, ‘the soul that sinneth, it shall die.’ However, to in any way confuse God’s governmental role with His personal feelings is gross error. God always wanted to forgive… He needed only to find a way to do it wisely. George Otis. Jr. (The God They Never Knew, Published by Mott Media, p. 24)
SPIRITUALLY SEPERATED OR PROVISIONALLY ABANDONED?
Having briefly explained the atonement itself, I want to discuss in more depth one aspect of the atonement. Many theologians say that Jesus was "separated from His Father'. This usually is in the penal substitution view because they say that 'God cannot look upon sin and our sin was upon Jesus.' But Jesus was not literally a sinner; therefore there was no sinfulness to actually separate Him from God. Bearing our sin, to my understanding, simply meant he died on behalf of our sins.
'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me' does not imply that there was a spiritual separation, but that there was a provisionary abandonment. That is, the protection that the Father had over the son was removed. For example, they tried to stone Jesus many times but they could not, because His time had not yet come. But now, the Fathers protection was withheld, and in this sense was Jesus 'forsaken'. The rest of the Psalm that Jesus was quoted says, 'Why are you so far from helping me.' Jesus was 'forsaken', not in the sense that there was a spiritual separation between Him and the Father because of a transfer of sinfulness, but that the Father did not help or deliver His son from the hands of wicked men, but actually delivered Him into their hands, so that He could die on account of our sins.
This is from my booklet, 'The VICARIOUS ATONEMENT'
Jesus was provisionally forsaken or abandoned by God (Matt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34) but not relationally separated (Jn. 8:29) because of any sin (Hab. 1:13; 2 Cor. 6:14). He was always pleasing to His Father (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mk. 1:1; Lk. 3:22; Jn. 8:29; 2 Pet. 1:17), especially during the crucifixion (Isa. 53:10-11). But He was forsaken in the sense that the Father gave the Son over into the hands of wicked men to be crucified (Matt. 17:22; 26:35; Mk. 14:41; Lk. 24:7; Acts 2:23), when He lifted up the protection He previously had over the Son (Matt. 4:6; Lk. 4:11; Jn. 7:30; 10:31; 10:39). The Son was forsaken by the Father only in that the Father was 'far from helping' or delivering the Son (Ps. 22:1). Pilate had no power over Jesus except what the Father gave to Him (Jn. 19:11). It was wicked men who actually crucified Jesus (Mk. 12:7; 27:35; Mk. 15:24-25; Lk. 20:14-15; 23:33; 24:20; 24:7; Jn. 19:18, 23; Acts 2:23; 2:36; 4:10; 1 Thes. 2:14-15). The Apostle Creed says that Jesus 'suffered under Pontius Pilate'. That is because it was Pilate who 'delivered' Jesus to be 'crucified' (Matt. 27:26; Mk. 15:15; Lk. 24:7; Jn. 19:16). In this same way the Father can be said to be the one who bruised the Son (Isa. 53:10), or sacrificed the Son (Gen. 22:2) in the sense that the Father gave the Son over as an offering (Jn. 3:16), lifting up the protection that He once had over the Son, delivering His Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the people. As the hymn says, 'God, His Son not sparing, sent Him to die' God spared not His Son but delivered Him for all mankind (Acts 4:25; Rom. 8:32). The Father bruised the Son only in the sense that He made 'His soul an offering for sin' (Isa. 53:10), but not in the sense that the Father directly bruised and crucified Him, or that the Son was under the wrath of the Father.