Featured Did Jesus experience a separation from God on the cross?

No. What is obvious is that God laid our iniquities on Jesus and offered him as a guilt offering and by his stripes we are healed. There is a reason you see as obvious what is in reality absent. Your theory has substituted "our punishment" for "iniquities.". You read your theory into the text.

 

I agree. There are several interpretations of the Atonement that is supported via Scripture (they all can't be right, but perhaps many are partially right). But where we may or may not agree is my insistence that we should always develop our understanding through Scripture and weigh them against the Word - not only when they are new, but also when they are worn comfortable by years of acceptance. That is my concern here. The absence of a willingness to discuss Scripture, to look at what is written apart from our explanations, on such an important topic.

What is interesting is that I never actually stated a theory of Atonement that represented my belief. I am a "heretic" because I challenged two theological conclusions that are not specific in Scripture (Christ's suffering being our punishment and a separation between God and Jesus). We have to turn back to Scripture - even if we keep the same theology it has to be through Scripture and not tradition. I know most don't care, like Internet Theologian, they just "believe what they believe" and that's it. I know it is far easier to become a theological apologetic than a Bible student. But the inability of Christians to defend their individual doctrines via Scripture is the reason I changed my major to religion in the first place. I was burned by this illiteracy in my own faith and by what I witnessed around me. After college this concern carried me through seminary.

We don't have to agree. Heck, I don't even agree with all of my views from last year and I'm pretty sure I said something in error at work this morning. If we progress in knowledge, in becoming more like Christ, if we grow, then this is how it should be. But we don't. We get stuck in our reasoning, our theories, and pretty soon we hold them as if they were Scripture. How we help each other is not converting others to our theological viewpoint. We do not have to agree - in fact, it is often better that we don't (at least there's a better chance one of us could be right). But we need to direct others away from commentary and tradition and to the Word of God. Commentaries have their place, but only after we have spent time prayerfully considering God's Word. We should welcome the opportunity to have others honestly question our belief, and we should be able to walk through Scripture (not theory) and show passage after passage revealing the truths we hold dear. If we can't then we should question those theories or at least hold them lightly. But we won't. We have to get back to the Bible.

 

For us, I believe this is God laying our iniquities on his Holy One and presenting him a guilt offering (Isa 53). But in terms of God sacrificing I believe that this is God's expression of his own live for us (Jn 3; Rm 5) and that love being self-giving and a giving of himself (Jn 15:13; 1 Jn 3:16).

 

I obviously disagree with your conclusions, but I am delighted to see more engagement with Scripture than you and I have been able to generate here. In essence you are "preaching to the choir" as you assume that "on the cross the Son is left utterly alone." But this is not, I take it, an apologetic for Penal Substitution theory. It is to reinforce the theory within a specific faith.

How do you reconcile taking Christ's words "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" to indicate experiencing an "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power" (as a separation) when Psalm 22 speaks of "forsaken" as being the physical sufferings in the flesh and offers this conclusion:

“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.” (Psalm 22:24) ?

 

We certainly disagree on the meaning of Psalm 22, brother. I am not saying, BTW, that your conclusions are void of Scripture. I am working off the understanding that we are both Christians, both disciples not only in our walk with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as exhibited towards others, but also in terms of our spiritual growth through God's Word. That we both look to Scripture is, IMHO, a given. My criticism that your conclusions are not derived from Scripture also does not mean derived entirely as this is impossible. A word read is processed before apprehended, and theology is by nature reflective of our own cognitive vices. We do the best we can, but in the end we lean not on our own understanding. My criticism is, however, that I find your theories and theologies more dependent upon explanation than I would desire for myself.

As to the charge that I have arrived at Sola Scriptura of late, you have severely misunderstood my faith, my thought process, and my history. Yes, I have discussed theology, Penal Substitution theory, and the development of theories throughout history. Your conclusion is neither honest or fair (in this post you demean me first for using commentaries and in the end for not using them) . In seminary I was very much engaged in the history of the Church. There is much to learn from our history, and much to glean from the historical development of our theories and doctrines. But the authority of Scripture is a truth that I have stood upon for decades.

We can not take the words "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" and make them mean anything, brother. That is my complaint. The quote has a meaning on its own. You make them mean something when scripture itself provides a context. So our argument is, basically, whether or not Jesus is fulfilling Psalm 22 as a whole or if that statement is meant as a stand alone declaration that God has abandoned his "Righteous One" on the cross to suffer our punishment.

I do not think that my view warrants as much disdain as you have thrust my direction. I say this because what I have questioned is not Scripture but a theory that contributes towards an explanation of the passage in question. Furthermore, what I have offered in place of this theory is Scripture itself with nothing added into the text.

But ultimately our disagreement is the degree to which we can rely on systematically derived reasoning. We all do it to some degree, so I'm not even critical of you for relying on your theories. I am a bit for not recognizing them for what they are as this is essential in interpretation. But I am less concerned with your view of the Cross than I am with your insistence that others (like me) who reject your conclusions are either heretics or simply cannot reason. Your objection is that I overly Psalm 22 (and other passages) over the cross as an interpretation. My objection is that you overlay your understanding of the Cross over Psalm 22 as an interpretation. I think your method is flawed. You believe my method is flawed. At least one of us is wrong.

 

We are human, brother. We typically do not want to see our ideas challenged, especially when we have built so much upon them. But no, I am far from cavalier about this issue. If anything, "cavalier" would describe your post as quoted above. I suppose "cowardly" would also apply as the insult is conversational to MM but about me on a public forum.

MM and I disagree. I do believe that he has inappropriately put forward suggestions and accusations against me, personally, within his arguments - but I know that I probably have done the same. This is easy to do. But you, brother, have just popped into the discussion to offer insult. I don't know MM, but I believe I can confidently say that his character exceeds appreciating your reply.

I will say that at first glance I thought that you were engaging this topic while being willfully and distinctly unaware of the arguments and issues both behind and interwoven within these theories, which is nothing less than arrogant stupidity. But I don’t think that accounts for you ad hominem. I suspect you were just cheering on MM, not realizing it was at the expense of your character. But that is the way is with some here. Anonymity is somehow viewed as a license for such behavior. If you ever want to discuss the passages, then please feel free to do so. I will gladly dialogue with you, and we can learn of each others views while defending our own. But if you simply want to attack my character I understand that as well. It is difficult to overcome sin in our lives and we all have our struggles.

 

You have misunderstood my intention. I brought up and argued the Church Fathers and their theory of Atonement not as proof supporting my own (I disagree with many of their conclusions....Origen thought Jesus basically paid the Devil off). I was trying to establish that Penal Substitution was not an early theory of the Church. I was saying that while aspects may have been there, those aspects did not add up to the theory. That's all. And it was appropriate in that context to use the Church Fathers as reference. It is not, however, true that I was resting my theology on their conclusions. This is a false statement, brother, but I am confident it was unintentional.

This is what my comment was directed at, brother:

I was only saying that Isaiah 53 says God laid our iniquity on Jesus, not our "punishment." That is your interpretation. I am fine with you defending an explanation as the word is absent from the text. I may be critical of your view, but I will not intentionally ridicule you or your view.

 

Nothing happens to our punishment. Punishment, like sin, is not a material thing. God forgives us in Christ and punishment is avoided. Forgiveness means relinquishing any claim.