While I often write and speak on the atonement, and seek to dismantle and deconstruct the penal substitution model and how it deals with the issue of Gods wrath, its inevitable that someone comments in response something akin to, Amen! There is no more wrath against us because it all fell upon Jesus at Calvary! Praise God! So I want to be as clear as I can here - there is no explicit, Biblical precedent for claiming that the wrath of God fell upon Jesus on the Cross. One can make the claim that the evidence is IMplicit (which Id still disagree with), but to claim that it is EXplicit is just downright dishonest and misleading. John Piper, a popular pastor and reformed teacher of our day, says of the work of Jesus: He [Jesus] continually puts himself between the Father and us as an asbestos shield against his white-hot anger against sin. Really? Jesus places Himself between us and the Father and acts as an asbestos shield to protect us from his white-hot anger against sin? Where O where would one get such an idea from? How could one ever come to such a conclusion, even after reading passages popularly used to prop up the penal substitution model? Even those passages that can sometimes *seem* to provide convincing proof for the idea, dont in any way hint at a God of white-hot anger from whom we need protection! In the scenario Piper lays out, Jesus becomes nothing more than a clove of garlic or a vial of holy water protecting us from the blood sucking vampires of the night, only in this case the vampire is our Creator. The logic behind such an idea is sick, twisted, and rooted in a misunderstanding of the Father and His relationship with Jesus. This model sets to two against one another, giving them different wills and different agendas. The father, in this model, is so enraged at sin that he can think only of punishing those who partake in it - which is all of us. He is so blinded by rage that He cannot possibly look past our faults and love us regardless. The Jesus of this model, however, is infinitely merciful and compassionate, and seeks to save us from the beatings of His wrath-drunk daddy. And so he pits himself against the Father, and takes upon Himself all that we deserve...and continue to deserve. And while some presentations of penal substitution seem to leave the Father permanently medicated with an atoning anti-depressant, Pipers leaves the Father in a state of rage, with the Son standing eternally between Him and us, for we need continual protection from the monster who exhaled us into existence, apparently. The work of Jesus does not reveal any such nonsense or dysfunction within the Godhead. It reveals a Father who would rather become the victim of our violence then allow us to continue down a path of self-destruction. It reveals a God who will take into Himself the malady of human sin and literally lay it in its grave in His own death. It reveals a God who, after His resurrection, does not return angry and wrathful towards the men and women who forsook and crucified Him, but one whose first words to those who abandoned Him are, Peace be with you! If the cross truly revealed the God spoken of by Piper then, honestly, I would have nothing to do with Him. Even if His existence were proven true, and even if His ways were terrible, I would resist Him. Why? Because something within me, something I can only assume came from Him, resists this idea passionately and cannot accept it as being reflective of a loving God. Something within me says rebel against this notion! Something deep, something holy, something Spirit-born in my soul says that this idea cannot have come from the one I call Abba. Friends, neither the word nor the Word (Jesus) testify to the truthfulness of the penal substitution model. And so I say again, explicitly, so as to not be misunderstood, the wrath of God did *NOT* fall upon Jesus on the Cross.
Posted on: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:41:21 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015