Propitiation

He did not, of course, do so. He inflicted it upon the Man Christ Jesus.
While every Person of the Trinity is involved in every action undertaken by one of the other Persons, they are not involved in the same way. The relationships among the Trinity are asymmetric, and that means that the actions are asymmetric. For example, the Father sent the Son and the Son obeyed the Father (John 10:15-18 etc.). The roles are not interchangeable.

So it is not meaningless to say that the Son Propitiated the Father. It is not the same Person who is subject and object of the verb. Nor does the fact that the Father exacted a punishment borne by the Son means the Persons of the Trinity are divided. The Son always does the things that please the Father (John 8:29), and 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him' (Isaiah 53:10).
See also John 10:17-18.
'For the Joy set out before Him' Christ endured the cross. 'Therefore God has exalted Him to the highest place.'

 

We have a salvation apart from the law because Christ has fulfilled the law.

 

Martin, I see this view as attempting to separate the hypostatic union prior to Christ commending His Spirit to the Father that the flesh would die.

From the point of conception to that point on the cross, the hypostatic union was and now is inseparable.

Therefore, it is impossible for the Father to react violently toward the Son. For to do so would be to violate Himself.

What is seen from the first statement by the Lord that He was to go up and suffer, was the complete understanding that such was not from the Father, but from humankind.

Prior to the Garden prayers and immediately following one gets small glimpses of the Father’s care for the Son. However, as the approach of arresting officers was that resignation that determination to the Will of the Father. Without a single complaint or rebuke, all done was by the will of the Father. No wrath from the Father can be found in any statement or in any part of the events.

By the Father withdrawing that hand of protection and sustaining, Christ would suffer at the hands of humankind without the rebuke or escape earlier afforded under the Father’s protection.

It can truly be seen that Christ was not forced in any manner, but laid His own life down as a ransom.

There was no “wrath of God” at the cross as mankind might picture, but the Devine in full control of every molecular structure sustaining the very elements of nature used against Him. Where before escape and sustainability poured from the Father, such was withheld.

Some have equated the Lord suffered the wrath of God so that believers would not. That view (in my opinion) is not sustainable by Scriptures.

If such a view were validated, then a violation in the type cast from the OT is missing that aspect , that of tortuous treatment, without which such could not then be an accurate picture of the events.

Because no such treatment is evidenced, in fact just the opposite, then it places the view of God pouring wrath out upon the Son as an invalid view.

 

Something does not cease to be a type simply because the reality or condition of the person for filling the office does not meet the type.

 

I understand that you imagine that I don’t understand your position, which in fact I do understand it, but the fact remains that you simply sidestep the arguments and the text provided as you usually do. That is the reality of our discussion.

 

The idea that God could not exercise condemnation and Wrath against his son simply because his son had no personal Sin is a fundamental misunderstanding of divine justice and it is a fundamental misunderstanding of civil law. Vicarious suffering is found both in gods divine law and American jurisprudence law

 

First, You misunderstand the fundamental nature of God’s law even though Christ spells it out more than once in clear explicit terms. Paul says the law is spiritual, meaning it is a fundamental principle applicable to the heart rather than a list of do’s and don’ts. As long is you perceive God’s laws to be a list of do’s and don’ts you will never be able to successfully discuss this subject or understand the Righteousness of God

 

This seems to be the ancient error of modalism. God is One, but He is in three Persons. Jesus Christ was God as if He was not Man; but He was also Man as if He was not God. It was as Man that He suffered and died. God can do neither.

The key verse here is John 10:18. 'This command I have received by My Father.' You also need to consider Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise [or 'crush'] Him; He has put Him to grief' and also Acts 4:28.

On the cross, He was forsaken by the Father. If it is not so, why does He say it is?

That is absolutely true. We should never imagine that the Father inflicted upon the Son a punishment that He was unwilling to undergo. John 10:18 again.

We need to be clear here: The Father's wrath was not against the Son, but against sin. 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are in the law, to do them' (Deuteronomy 27:28; Galatians 3:10). Mankind is under a curse because of sin, and Christ was made sin for us, and bore the curse of God. Why was Christ crucified? He might have been stoned, poisoned, beheaded, but none of these portrayed Him becoming a curse for us. 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree' (Deuteronomy 21:23; Galatians 3:13). God poured out His wrath against the Son made sin. 'For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God' (1 Peter 3:18).

Not quite sure what you mean here. '"Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, against the Man who is My fellow," says the LORD. "Smite the Shepherd"' (Zechariah 13:7).
'Whoever perished, being innocent?' (Job 4:7). We confidently answer, No one! So before God's wrath could fall upon Christ, the sins of His people must be transferred to Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). This was foreshadowed in Israel's Day of Atonement. 'And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, with all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat' (Leviticus 16:21). So it is written, 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquities of us all.......and He bore the sin of many' (Isaiah 53:6, 12; 1 Peter 2:24).

 

If the type is invalidated by actuality, the either the type or the actuality is presenting that which is unreliable.

 

Colossians 2:13–14

[13] And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, [14] by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (ESV)

 

I understand you would like to imagine that I have ignored and/or misunderstood your position as carefully crafted below but the reality is not found in your use of biblical language but in your definitions of that language and interpretations of biblical texts, both which I find appalling and unbiblical.

Here is where the word games begin. When you say, “apart from the law and a here is where the word games begin. When you say, “apart from the law” you mean something entirely different the what the Bible teaches. Salvation “apart from the law” in The biblical sense merely means it is not of our own personal obedience to the law. The Oxymoron is when you say or use the term “obedience” in reference to Christ but alienate it from the law as though “obedience” can be defined apart from the law Which is as oxymoronic as using the term “obedience” with regard to us apart from the law.
Furthermore it is self evident that you do not have even a fundamental grasp of the law. The law is spiritual or so says the apostle Paul but you defined it in carnal terms as a list of do’s and don’ts. To say it is spiritual demands it is a principle that could be applied to the heart and mind of people and that principle is repeatedly and explicitly defined as love. You don’t understand that you don’t grasp it and that is why you come up with your oxymoronic contrast between law and obedience. Jesus came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it meaning in its principal as Matthew chapter 5 is defined by Matthew chapter 7 verse 12. In other words Christ demonstrated love for the father.In principle, the righteousness of God he is the love of God and therefore in principle the law of God is the love of God, not of the letter but of the spirit that is the principal.
With regard to textual interpretation you completely misinterpret Roman 3:21-22. The text is clearly teaching that the righteousness of God is revealed in the law and in the prophets and in the life of Jesus Christ. Perhaps, if you would substitute the Word “law “with “law of love quote you could grasp what he saying because that is the biblical definition of the law in its spiritual sense as a principal. So the righteousness of God is manifested in the law Of love and it’s written form and And its prophetic form interpretive form but most completely in its incarnate form.

 

The type is external but what you are trying to do is to invalidate the type by an internal state. So following your principal the great high priest cannot be a type of Christ and less he is Christ or unless he is spiritually internally in the condition of Christ which is simply nonsense

 

Not certain what the contention over internal/external is coming from, but since it has been brought up, perhaps this will help.

Do you remember that even the high priest had to offer for himself and his family first? Of course you do.

At that point, being washed and cleansed, how then did not the high priest represent Christ both as the internal and external?

For was not the robe hemmed with bells and a rope tied to the ankle lest God see some impurity of the heart and strike the priest dead?

Therefore, the internal was certainly a factor of importance to the type as well as the external visual aspects.

There is no picture representing accurately that the high priest offered blood for sin without first himself being cleansed. The painting was not external to the canvas, but soaked into the very fabric of the weave and so locked into the whole as when even covered over by excess (such as Samuel's sons) it remained discernible.

What of Christ, did He need such cleansing first?

No, He was BOTH the high priest and the sacrifice. He had both the internal and external values of both items. He needed no cleansing because He carried the cleansing as part of Him.

The type were basically pictures of the assured hope of the promise pictured in what was yet unseen.

That is, just as we look back at the crucifixion, the type in the Jewish view was that of a promise yet to be fulfilled.

Both OT and NT believers have that basic assurance of all hoped based on the evidences of what is yet to come.