Penal Substitution and the Trinity

[Darrell C]

Why the need for separation, either-or? Christ does both.

"Both" are not in view in the discussion, which has as a focus examining the belief that Christ was "forsaken" of God when His wrath was poured out on Christ. At that time, it is suggested, Christ was forsaken of God. One of the issues that has arose is whether, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ is asking that He not go to the Cross when He states "Take this cup away."

By your statement it seems you are taking the position that Christ was separated from the Father, or God (however you might want to phrase it)?


God bless.

 

[Revmitchell]

Mat_27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Mar_15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

 

[The Archangel]

"Both" are not in view in the discussion, which has as a focus examining the belief that Christ was "forsaken" of God when His wrath was poured out on Christ. At that time, it is suggested, Christ was forsaken of God. One of the issues that has arose is whether, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ is asking that He not go to the Cross when He states "Take this cup away."

By your statement it seems you are taking the position that Christ was separated from the Father, or God (however you might want to phrase it)?


God bless.

Whether the Trinity itself was "broken" for a short period of time is, ultimately, unknowable. I believe it was, but on logical ground only (as opposed to textual grounds). So, if there is disagreement, it isn't a big issue. However, it is nearly undeniable that the "cup" that Jesus spoke of was the cup of God's wrath.

Is Jesus asking for another way? Yes. God answered "No." Was Jesus forsaken? Yes, absolutely. Does that being forsaken necessitate a fracture in the Trinity, perhaps not, but it could.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

It seems to me you're reading your understanding of the language of your New Testament passages back into Isaiah to weaken what it actually says.

Does it not say, "Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt... (Isaiah 53:10 ESV) Does not your statements above contradict this passage?

Of course, men drove the nails, but they were acting--of their own free will while sinning--in perfect unison with the will of God.

The Archangel

I believe we both think the other is reading error into the passage.

I view God as having the same wrath towards offering His Son as Abraham held towards Isaac.

Certainly God put forth His Son as a propitiation for our sins, but what the Father poured out on Christ was not His wrath in killing Him but His love for us in the giving and His love for His Son in the vindicating Him.

 

[The Archangel]

I believe we both think the other is reading error into the passage.

I view God as having the same wrath towards offering His Son as Abraham held towards Isaac.

Certainly God put forth His Son as a propitiation for our sins, but what the Father poured out on Christ was not His wrath in killing Him but His love for us in the giving and His love for His Son in the vindicating Him.

So, you're arguing that when Christ is on the cross, God is pouring out His love on Him?

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

So, you're arguing that when Christ is on the cross, God is pouring out His love on Him?

The Archangel

No. I'm arguing that on the Cross God was, by giving His beloved Son, pouring out His love on us.

 

[HankD]

Whether the Trinity itself was "broken" for a short period of time is, ultimately, unknowable. I believe it was, but on logical ground only (as opposed to textual grounds). So, if there is disagreement, it isn't a big issue. However, it is nearly undeniable that the "cup" that Jesus spoke of was the cup of God's wrath.

Is Jesus asking for another way? Yes. God answered "No." Was Jesus forsaken? Yes, absolutely. Does that being forsaken necessitate a fracture in the Trinity, perhaps not, but it could.

The Archangel

I don't believe there was a fracture.

There was an agreement of propitiation.

God the Father, the administrator.
God the Son, the recipient.

Until : It is finished.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I would point out to you and @Martin Marprelate that while you esteem Christ as stricken, smitten by God and afflicted He was instead pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with His wounds we are healed - for God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

This betrays a complete misunderstanding of the text. The Jews correctly considered Christ as stricken--even you will surely agree that!-- smitten by God and afflicted, but they didn't understand why! They didn't comprehend that He was pierced, not for His own sins, but for our transgressions etc.

 

[JonC]

This betrays a complete misunderstanding of the text. The Jews correctly considered Christ as stricken--even you will surely agree that!-- smitten by God and afflicted, but they didn't understand why! They didn't comprehend that He was pierced, not for His own sins, but for our transgressions etc.

You are wrong.

The context of the passage is that the Jews considered Jesus afflicted by God (yet, but, however, or to the contrary) He was bearing their sins (God was redeeming mankind, not punishing Christ).

The proof is in Scripture (God will not condemn the righteous). The assurance that we have in our suffering is that whatever we are going through is not God's wrath. It may be God's discipline, or it may be God using for us in another way for His purposes (like the persecution of the early Church). This assurance is based in the fact that Christ's suffering was not God's wrath. We know that God will be faithful to us because God was faithful to Christ.

What you are doing is reading your tradition into the passage.

 

[The Archangel]

The context of the passage is that the Jews considered Jesus afflicted by God (yet, but, however, or to the contrary) He was bearing their sins (God was redeeming mankind, not punishing Christ).

There is more to the passage than that one line, though. Verse 10 clearly tells us that Yahweh is crushing His suffering servant. What that means for vs. 4-6 is that Yahweh is crushing Christ for the sins committed by someone else.

It does not get more plain than that.

The proof is in Scripture (God will not condemn the righteous). The assurance that we have in our suffering is that whatever we are going through is not God's wrath. It may be God's discipline, or it may be God using for us in another way for His purposes (like the persecution of the early Church). This assurance is based in the fact that Christ's suffering was not God's wrath. We know that God will be faithful to us because God was faithful to Christ.

You've stated a presupposition "God will not condemn the righteous" and you suppose it extends also to the suffering servant. Isaiah 53 clearly says that the Servant is righteous and that the LORD crushes Him.

What you are doing is reading your tradition into the passage.

Please don't pretend--even for a minute--that you aren't doing this. You are re-imagining Isaiah 53 because of your presuppositions (or "tradition").

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

There is more to the passage than that one line, though. Verse 10 clearly tells us that Yahweh is crushing His suffering servant. What that means for vs. 4-6 is that Yahweh is crushing Christ for the sins committed by someone else.

It does not get more plain than that.



You've stated a presupposition "God will not condemn the righteous" and you suppose it extends also to the suffering servant. Isaiah 53 clearly says that the Servant is righteous and that the LORD crushes Him.



Please don't pretend--even for a minute--that you aren't doing this. You are re-imagining Isaiah 53 because of your presuppositions (or "tradition").

The Archangel

You are reading into the passage.

You are also probably aware that verse 10 of the LXX has God (the Lord) as being disassociated form the persecutors. God is not implicated as perpetrator against the persecuted servant but it is the Lord’s desire to restore His servant, purifying him of the "sickness". (The LXX translates the verse to clearly indicate that the Lord is the Servant’s advocate and not persecutor). The Righteous Servant suffers and dies in order to be raised again.

William Bellinger (Jesus and the Suffering Servant) points this out when he speaks of having to go to the Hebrew text rather than the LXX to make the allusion to God as persecutor.

Isaiah 53 does not affirm that God was in any way wrathful towards Christ. In fact, other passages I mentioned insist the opposite true. One of the difficulties you have is in reconciling an immutable and just God with a God who would punish the "Righteous One" as if He were a sinner in order to extend forgiveness to those who rightfully should have been punished. I don't mean this is difficult through philosophy (e.g., God is in reality taking the punishment unto Himself....which is also a flawed argument) but that it is difficult as Scripture specifically denies the possibility.

 

[The Archangel]

You are reading into the passage.

Not at all...

I notice you keep saying this about others, and yet you don't point out in the passage itself why that is.... Curious.

You are also probably aware that verse 10 of the LXX has God (the Lord) as being disassociated form the persecutors. God is not implicated as perpetrator against the persecuted servant but it is the Lord’s desire to restore His servant, purifying him of the "sickness". (The LXX translates the verse to clearly indicate that the Lord is the Servant’s advocate and not persecutor). The Righteous Servant suffers and dies in order to be raised again.

William Bellinger (Jesus and the Suffering Servant) points this out when he speaks of having to go to the Hebrew text rather than the LXX to make the allusion to God as persecutor.

Here is the passage in Greek: καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς, I see nothing here that suggests what you are saying.

What is more, the LXX does not "correct" the Hebrew. The LXX can inform our understanding of how the Hebrew text might have been understood, but it does not supersede the Hebrew text.

Isaiah 53 does not affirm that God was in any way wrathful towards Christ. In fact, other passages I mentioned insist the opposite true.

The only way to claim this is by discrediting and disregarding what Isaiah has written.

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

It seems to me you're reading your understanding of the language of your New Testament passages back into Isaiah to weaken what it actually says.

Does it not say, "Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt... (Isaiah 53:10 ESV) Does not your statements above contradict this passage?

Of course, men drove the nails, but they were acting--of their own free will while sinning--in perfect unison with the will of God.

The Archangel

Acts 2:23 cannot support what JonC claims is happening at that time!

 

[JonC]

Not at all...

I notice you keep saying this about others, and yet you don't point out in the passage itself why that is.... Curious.



Here is the passage in Greek: καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς, I see nothing here that suggests what you are saying.

What is more, the LXX does not "correct" the Hebrew. The LXX can inform our understanding of how the Hebrew text might have been understood, but it does not supersede the Hebrew text.



The only way to claim this is by discrediting and disregarding what Isaiah has written.

The Archangel

If what you are saying is that you did not know that the LXX interpreted the passage in that manner, then I'm glad I could shed a little light on the topic. Another interesting thing is that John's quote of Isaiah 53 actually comes from the LXX. (Just a little trivia).

Even with the English - "the Lord was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief" could very easily be understood as it being the Father's will to give His Son as a guilt offering (that Christ lay down His own life in obedience to the will of the Father). Not only does this fit with the text, but it does not contradict other passages that state God will not condemn the righteous (and that God is able to discern the difference).

So, while we disagree on the interpretation, it should be obvious that various interpretations of Isaiah 53 exist. I believe you interpretation is influenced very much by your tradition. If mine were, then we'd probably agree (I come from the same tradition as you).

 

[Yeshua1]

Whether the Trinity itself was "broken" for a short period of time is, ultimately, unknowable. I believe it was, but on logical ground only (as opposed to textual grounds). So, if there is disagreement, it isn't a big issue. However, it is nearly undeniable that the "cup" that Jesus spoke of was the cup of God's wrath.

Is Jesus asking for another way? Yes. God answered "No." Was Jesus forsaken? Yes, absolutely. Does that being forsaken necessitate a fracture in the Trinity, perhaps not, but it could.

The Archangel

Something happened between God the Father and Jesus while on that Cross that puny minds like we all have cannot understand, as even the greatest theologian of all time could only express
Romans 11:33-36

 

[Yeshua1]

If what you are saying is that you did not know that the LXX interpreted the passage in that manner, then I'm glad I could shed a little light on the topic. Another interesting thing is that John's quote of Isaiah 53 actually comes from the LXX. (Just a little trivia).

Even with the English - "the Lord was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief" could very easily be understood as it being the Father's will to give His Son as a guilt offering (that Christ lay down His own life in obedience to the will of the Father). Not only does this fit with the text, but it does not contradict other passages that state God will not condemn the righteous (and that God is able to discern the difference).

So, while we disagree on the interpretation, it should be obvious that various interpretations of Isaiah 53 exist. I believe you interpretation is influenced very much by your tradition. If mine were, then we'd probably agree (I come from the same tradition as you).

The hebrews scriptures were the inspired ones though, and they in Isaiah clearly show to us the suffering Servant of Yahweh, and Jesus knew that he wuld be forced to drink from that bitter Cup of wrath stored up by God towards sins, correct?

 

[JonC]

Acts 2:23 cannot support what JonC claims is happening at that time!

Acts 2:22-24 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

Actually, Acts 2:23 is EXACTLY what I am saying.

Christ was delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God to suffer and die at the hands of the godless. The Jews caused His suffering by the hands of godless men (the Romans). God's action was to deliver Christ and to raise Him up again. Man's action was to put Him to death.

 

[Yeshua1]

Acts 2:22-24
22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—
23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
24 "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

Actually, Acts 2:23 is EXACTLY what I am saying.

Christ was delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God to suffer and die at the hands of the godless. God's action was to deliver Christ and to raise Him up again. Man's action was to put Him to death.

God the father determined/caused the Cross and death of Christ to happen, and use as his agents sinners willing to do that deed!
God the Father Himself placed Jesus upon that Cross, and Jesus agreed to suffer and die in our stead....

 

[JonC]

The hebrews scriptures were the inspired ones though, and they in Isaiah clearly show to us the suffering Servant of Yahweh, and Jesus knew that he wuld be forced to drink from that bitter Cup of wrath stored up by God towards sins, correct?

Well, no. Most of the time when we see the NT quoting the OT, we are looking at a quote from the LXX. When John quoted Isaiah 53 he quoted from the LXX.

Here is the difference in terms of Isaiah 53. The LXX does not allow Isaiah 53:10 to present God as pouring His wrath upon Christ. The Hebrew text allows it, but does not demand it.

God the father determined/caused the Cross and death of Christ to happen, and use as his agents sinners willing to do that deed!
God the Father Himself placed Jesus upon that Cross, and Jesus agreed to suffer and die in our stead....

But that is not what Acts 2:23 teaches.

 

[The Archangel]

If what you are saying is that you did not know that the LXX interpreted the passage in that manner, then I'm glad I could shed a little light on the topic. Another interesting thing is that John's quote of Isaiah 53 actually comes from the LXX. (Just a little trivia).

I know of many discrpancies between the LXX and the Hebrew text. I also know well that most of the New Testament's quotes of the Old Testament are of the LXX. Ultimately, neither of these things matter when it comes to the passage at hand.

I noticed that you did not deal with this: Here is the passage in Greek: καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς, I see nothing here that suggests what you are saying.

Even with the English - "the Lord was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief" could very easily be understood as it being the Father's will to give His Son as a guilt offering (that Christ lay down His own life in obedience to the will of the Father). Not only does this fit with the text, but it does not contradict other passages that state God will not condemn the righteous (and that God is able to discern the difference).

You seem to be hung up on the word "Condemn." 1 Peter 3:18 says, "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God..." (ESV) Christ here, the righteous one, is suffering, not for his unrighteousness, but for the unrighteousness of others. There is condemnation, but it is not full and final. This goes along perfectly with Isaiah 53.

I do not think God delights in crushing the Servant, but finds delight in the Servant's sacrifice. But, the meaning of that sacrifice is not left to our imagination. Isaiah 53:4-6 clearly tells us that the servant bears our sin and suffers for them. Isaiah makes this abundantly clear.

So, while we disagree on the interpretation, it should be obvious that various interpretations of Isaiah 53 exist. I believe you interpretation is influenced very much by your tradition. If mine were, then we'd probably agree (I come from the same tradition as you).

And how is your "interpretation" not influenced by something? I find it particularly ironic that in the 1 Jn 2:2 discussions, you totally disallowed any appeal to any other text. Yet here, you insist on doing it yourself. It is curious.

The Archangel