There's been some discussion over on Revd Michael Jensen's blog (27th Feb, arising from Pierced For Our Transgressions) about whether or not we should say that God was angry with the Son and punished him. Michael denies, but I think we must affirm if we are to have penal substitution, the justice and mercy of God and the gospel.
I would say:
The triune God was angry at the elect in the Son, and hence both at us and at the Son-in-his-union-with-sinners (who are joined to him by faith in the Spirit) and rightly therefore God punished us in the Son and the Son in his union with us.
Obviously God the Father was always well pleased with his Son as Son and one might almost say the Son's obedience to death especially pleased the Father. It would be wrong for God to punish the innocent Son but not for God to punish the Son in his union with sinners, since they really are one.
This is at the heart of the gospel: that I and my sins are punished in the Son so that I do not have to experience the penalty for sin in myself (only in the Son). God's wrath is poured out, I am punished, my sin is paid for but I go free.
I reckon some people might have a difficulty with this which tracks back to a suspicion of rationality and logical inference / distinctions that can't always be read off the surface of a particular biblical text?
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Well, you have made a helpful clarification of the language here of course (I don't think the rational inference question is relevant actually). I want to avoid the sloppy thinking and preaching which makes it sound as if Jesus was a gormless innocent bystander in the whole atonement process. You hear it often from evangelical pulpits!
Yes, I can see that sometimes preaching the cross might sound like that - which I think Stott warns against, doesnt he (who needs to be propitiated? who provides the propitiation? who is the propitiation? God).
I think this is more than a terminological thing, though, since it is people as sinners who need to be punished not "sin", which tracks the issue back onto limited atonement.
We wouldn't normally think that moral guilt (or merit) can be transfered between persons. The cross seems like an immoral exchange in which God punishes the innocent for the crimes of others while the guilty are left unpunished.
The real union of the elect with the Son (by faith in the Spirit) helps us to see how it is just for him to be punished (though he is innocent since he is punished for my sin and I am in him). And how his punishment means that I am punished for my sin but I do not have to face the punishment in my own experience (only in the Son).
Justice and mercy. Wonderful.
God angry at the elect in the Son -not that far off from NT Wright that God punishes sin in Christ -from memory -not saying that's a good or a bad thing.
I think MJ is right that the Jesus as bystander is why people have a problem with psa -wonky trinitarian theology is often a root cause of error
Jesus came to earth for this one purpose : to die for our sins.
That fact comes up all throughout the gospels straight from the lips of our Lord, in most cases.
How on earth can theologians who presumably are familiar with the Bible go for this "innocent bystander" strawman and thereby confuse their hearers/readers ?
Grow up people (i.e. those who deny PSA) This is not a game.
Preach the gospel or go get yourselves another job.
Whoo. Got that off my chest.
Sorry for ranting all over your blog Marc. I'll try not to do it again.
All the best to you and your missess.
Post a Comment