1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Penal Substitution and the Trinity

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Martin Marprelate, Mar 18, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 3 of 8
  1. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,773
    Likes Received:
    341
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "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.
     
    #41 Darrell C, Mar 21, 2018
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,030
    Likes Received:
    3,657
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?”
     
    #42 Revmitchell, Mar 21, 2018
  3. The Archangel

    The Archangel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,357
    Likes Received:
    243
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #43 The Archangel, Mar 21, 2018
  4. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #44 JonC, Mar 21, 2018
  5. The Archangel

    The Archangel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,357
    Likes Received:
    243
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So, you're arguing that when Christ is on the cross, God is pouring out His love on Him?

    The Archangel
     
    #45 The Archangel, Mar 21, 2018
  6. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. I'm arguing that on the Cross God was, by giving His beloved Son, pouring out His love on us.
     
    #46 JonC, Mar 21, 2018
  7. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #47 HankD, Mar 21, 2018
  8. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,909
    Likes Received:
    2,128
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #48 Martin Marprelate, Mar 21, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #49 JonC, Mar 21, 2018
  10. The Archangel

    The Archangel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,357
    Likes Received:
    243
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #50 The Archangel, Mar 21, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #51 JonC, Mar 21, 2018
  12. The Archangel

    The Archangel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,357
    Likes Received:
    243
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #52 The Archangel, Mar 21, 2018
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Acts 2:23 cannot support what JonC claims is happening at that time!
     
    #53 Yeshua1, Mar 21, 2018
  14. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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).
     
    #54 JonC, Mar 21, 2018
  15. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #55 Yeshua1, Mar 21, 2018
  16. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
    #56 Yeshua1, Mar 21, 2018
  17. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #57 JonC, Mar 21, 2018
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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....
     
    #58 Yeshua1, Mar 21, 2018
  19. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.

    But that is not what Acts 2:23 teaches.
     
    #59 JonC, Mar 21, 2018
  20. The Archangel

    The Archangel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,357
    Likes Received:
    243
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.

    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.

    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
     
    #60 The Archangel, Mar 21, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
Page 3 of 8
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...