For many years I taught the seven sayings of the cross and when I came to the words of Jesus, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" I used the text as evidence that the Father had turned His back on His own Son when Jesus was on the cross. "The Bible is clear that God cannot look upon sin!" I would boldly proclaim. It seemed reasonable to me that God turned away from Jesus. After all, isn't that what Jesus said?The answer is, "No, that is not what He said. That is what He asked. There's a big difference between making an assertion and asking a question."
"Do you mean Jesus was wrong?" you might ask. My answer is that it was Jesus, the Man who became sin for us. When he absorbed the darkness and weight of the sin of the world into Himself, He had the sense of abandonment by God the Father that sin always brings. Blinded by sin and horrified by its effect on and in Him, the man Jesus cried out of His humanity, "Why have you forsaken me?" In that moment, He identified Himself with every person who has ever felt abandoned by God. He became one who felt isolated, lonely, abandoned, forsaken and hopeless on behalf of you, me, and everybody who would ever feel that way.
The question Jesus spoke was a direct quote from the prophetic Psalm 22, where in the very first verse the psalmist asks, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It is noteworthy that this is the only time Jesus ever called His Father "God" and not "Father." In that moment,the man Jesus felt forsaken. Having become sin for us, He could not feel or sense or see His Father's embrace at that moment.
The gospels don't record an answer to His question, but Psalm 22 does. In response to the first verse where the psalmist cries out the prophetic words, "Why have you forsaken me?" there is an answer in verse 24. Here's the answer to the question of Jesus, the question of the psalmist and the question of every person who has ever felt abandoned by the Father: For he (God the Father) has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.
Sin may deafen our ears to the answer, but the reality is that the Father has never and will never despise, disdain or turn His face away from us, forsaking us. He has heard our cry for help!
God the Father forsaking His own Son? Impossible! God the Father was "in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself!" (2 Corinthians 5:19) Jesus didn't feel it at the time. It seemed like the Father had forsaken Him, but He hadn't! Nor will He ever forsake you.
But what about the "God cannot look upon sin" part? Doesn't the Bible say that? Well, it does but we need to put that comment in context. It was Habakkuk the prophet who said that as he watched evil people seemingly getting away with their sins. Here's the whole quote in context:
Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves? Habakkuk 1:13
To paraphrase him, Habakkuk said, "Your eyes are too pure to look on evil and you can't tolerate wrong so why are you?" In other words, it made no sense to Habakkuk that God was looking on sin when Habakkuk believed that wasn't possible. He was smearing the face of God with the guilt and shame of humanity the same way Adam had done when he hid himself in the Garden of Eden because He thought God wouldn't want to look at him after he sinned. Adam was wrong. God came for His walk that day just as He had every day. And Habakkuk was wrong too.
The fact is that God can look upon sin. Some people act as if the relationship of God the Father to sin is like Superman's aversion to kryptonite. They act as if God is afraid of sin, but nothing could be further from the truth. In Christ Jesus, sin has been destroyed - finished- end of story. (See Daniel 9:24) Through the finished work of the cross, sin has been defeated! God hates sin because of what it does to us, not because it does anything to Him.
So, on the cross Jesus took the sin of the world upon Himself. As a man who became sin for us (so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him), He felt forsaken, but He was not. The Father did hear His cry and, as the empty tomb three days later proves, did not forsake Him. The question of Jesus the man was: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The answer from God the Father was: "I haven't! I've not despised, disdained nor forsaken you. I'm here with you, in this moment, carrying you through this death to the glorious resurrection on the other side."
That was true for Jesus when he felt forsaken and it's true for you when you feel that way too.
Posts
Awesome!
ReplyDeleteFew remember that the third verse of this song is often quoted as "God inhabits the praises of his people." Just as God showed up in power after Jesus praises Him (in song) with His dying words, God showed up for Paul and Silas in prison. The results were similar - God shows up as an earthquake, captives are set free, and gentiles come to believe.
ReplyDeleteJesus knew that in praising God we give Him a place to dwell more powerful and accessible than the space between the cherubim. In dedicating this new temple, Jesus would have had echoes of the song he sung the night before, Psalm 118 - God is good, His love endures forever.
Hallelujah indeed.
Awesome post, as always Steve. I have a slightly different opinion on Jesus' words (tho we agree more than not)...I believe that, far from believing that Yahweh had forsaken him, he was, even at the time of his death, teaching us. Reminding us of the words of prophecy in Psalm 22 that pointed to him and his true identity.
ReplyDeleteAs for that rubbish about God not being able to look upon (or be in the presence of) Sin, I point to the loving Father whose first act after the revelation of Adam's fall (in Gen 3:21) was to fashion clothing out of animal skins for his beloved ones. Doesn't sound like He ran screaming in terror from their sin; He stayed right there with them, clothing them, and reaffirming his love for them.
This is the God you introduced me to, Steve; the God that I always wished existed but couldn't dare to believe was true, until you proved it to me straight out of scripture. This God will stick with me, no matter what, loving me passionately no matter how badly I screw it up...and in so doing, actually brings out in me the love and praise He designed me for. How awesome is He???
great post, Steve. What a critical reckoning we must continually make between the holy righteousness and unconditional love of our Father. Thanks again!
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for this. It puts so clearly something I've been thinking and wanting to say for a long, long time. As much as I love the rest of the song, I always choke on the line "the Father turns his face away..." in the song "How Deep the Father's Love for us." PS. I found your blog by clicking the "next blog" link from my blog. Providential blogging!
ReplyDeleteDale Harris
Wow! He even took my feelings of alienation to the cross, understanding exactly how I feel...
ReplyDeleteI was wondering about that "God can't look on sin" verse - yes, what parent would turn away from their child whenever the child sinned? Why, that's exactly when the child needs the parent's love and help the most! He is surely the perfect parent!
Thanks for sharing these wonderful thoughts!
Wow,I had thought about this without thinking through.From experience,I know God stays around, loving as ever when we blow it,I get confused about reality and theory when I think of the fact that He is too holy to behold iniquity.How we have been deceived about who God is, simply by taking scriptures out of context!
ReplyDeleteExcellent post! This also brings up (for me) the question of what God is doing when I am sinning. And I'm beginning to believe that He goes through it with me. God and I go through sin together and He's right there waiting for me to turn to Him--not for cleasing or for forgiveness, but for His sustenance.
ReplyDeleteThis was really incredible reading this, wow, so God never left Jesus; but Jesus suspected that He did, because Jesus was blinded by all that sin. Thanks for the reference to Psalm 22 showing this. This is really just awesome!
ReplyDeleteTO PHIL - I didn't post your comment because I'm not willing to debate the points in the video links you embedded in your post. I respect the teacher you referenced, but don't agree with him on everything. I'd be happy to discuss your views with you but not publicly give a rebuttal to his views that you post. If you'd like to write your questions/points and post them, I'll be happy to respond. Or if you want to send me an email, I'll be glad to discuss my view with you. I just don't want to respond to another ministry leader's views when he clearly hasn't asked my thoughts on his opinions. He's a man I respect and appreciate his ministry and I don't want to be drawn into what would appear to be a criticism of him by answering his views here. I hope this makes sense and that you'll understand my reasoning.
ReplyDeleteThanks Steve, I appreciate that and understand. I was a bit miffed that my comment wasn't posted, but I understand now. Sounds like a kind, wise move concerning the other guys involved :)
ReplyDeleteI embedded the links really because of how they fitted with what I was saying about penal substitution.
I've had a habit of commenting on blogs in a kind of interactive fashion, like that other comment lower down on christian cataracts ;)
I don't know if you still have the comment, but I was basically saying that while "the Father turns away His face" is probably not a great phrase, because Jesus was always loved, at the same time I don't see how we can know God is for us in all of his holiness and whole being forever without there being a penal element to the atonement. We need to know that God is just in justifying us, and when the language and types and shadows are as they are, and the action of God in the law covenant was as it was, it seems to me that's crucial to the gospel being "good news" and the power of God. To knowing that we are free from the law and all its curses and have the Spirit.
So my question(s); what is your understanding of the atonement, what are the objective grounds for the christian standing in "no condemnation" apart from works, as well as for God objectively reckoning justification to "the ungodly"?
Thanks,
Phil
Thanks for your understanding, Phil. As I mentioned, I respect the man you referenced and didn't want to engage in criticism against him here.
ReplyDeleteNow...on to your questions and the points you raised: Most of us in the evangelical world grew up being taught the penal substitution view of the atonement, but the reality is that it is only one view. There are at least three viable views of the atonement and then other variations of those three. The core of the issue revolves around whether we view God primarily through a "judicial lens" or a "relationship lens."
The traditional view sees Him as a "holy God" who was offended by our sin and had to somehow balance the books by making somebody pay for it. My view (and that of many others) is that the fall of man didn't so much present a legal problem as much as it did an organic problem. The introduction of sin into the bloodline of humanity brought a death sentence. So, the cross was the place of atonement for sin. (The word "propitiation" can be defined as "the place of atonement" equally as well as "the act of atonement.")
On the cross, Jesus DID take our place and absorbed our sin into Himself. He sacrificed Himself to save us from the death sin brings. The cross wasn't a scene where the Father was pouring out anger on the Son. It was the place where the Father was in the Son, reconciling us to Himself by the power of the Spirit. (2 Cor 5:19)
Your perspective about God's justice in justifying us is common and I respect that view, but I believe that His mercy and grace is certainly as big as His justice. There is no injustice in God choosing to forgive us and give us His life. God condemned SIN in the person of Jesus. He dealt with sin, once and for all. So the death sentence has been lifted and we are no longer under the condemnation of sin. Remember that Jesus said that He "didn't come to condemn the world but that the world, through Him, might be saved." Then - "He that believes not is condemned already because He has not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God" (John 3:17-18) The cure for sin - for death and condemnation - is the finished work of Jesus on the cross. That's the objective basis for our salvation. It becomes a subjective experience when we believe on Him.
The language, types and shadows of the OT can certainly look punitive IF you look at them through a judicial lens, but there's another way of seeing them too. It was the BLOOD of the animals that offered efficacy for dealing with their sins in the OT. It wasn't the brutal killing of the animal. In fact, they were killed very quickly and humanely.
If the offering of Christ must be penal in nature, then how did flour serve as a sin offering? Leviticus 5:5-13 says that if a person didn't have the money for an animal sacrifice, they could use flour. How could that possibly be a picture of a punitive response to sin? The OT offerings are a picture of a CURATIVE response to sin, not a punitive one. When we read about the OT offerings,types and shadows through the lens of loving relationship as opposed to a lens of punitive reckoning, it fits perfectly.
Obviously, I know that some won't share my view. To me, this view of the atonement fits the nature of God (who IS love) while the penal substitution view seems contradictory to His nature.
Phil, like many others, I grapple with truth and make no claim to being infallible in my views. This is one that I wrestled with for a long time, and this is where I've landed in my perspective. I respect the opinion of others, but for me - this best fits what I believe about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and seems to be sound hermeneutics when it comes to understanding the biblical teaching on the subject.
I said that I respect the opinion of others, but let me qualify that: I respect the informed opinion of others - meaning that I encourage those who read this exchange between you and I to study the topic for themselves and don't hold an opinion simply because its what you've always been taught and believed. There are other ways of seeing the atonement than the penal substitution viewpoint. Those views are held by Christians who love Jesus and value the integrity of Scripture just as much as those who believe in penal substitution.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the questions and dialogue, Phil. This is an important issue and I realize people don't shift from one paradigm to another without a lot of questions and even struggles.
Steve - If you move away from a penal view of the atonemnet do you not move toward inclusion or universal salvation? How do you differentiate between them.
ReplyDeleteGood question, John. The fact that the efficacy of the work of the cross includes every person doesn't automatically mean that every person has "accepted their acceptance." Like the elder brother in the story of the Prodigal, they can stubbornly insist on standing outside the "grace party" even though they are completely included.
ReplyDeleteJesus must have felt defeat but realized Sunday's A Comin'!!! It may be that to move away from penal substitution in one's mind may temporarily help them with God's severity even if it's a non-diminishing of the grace in the efficacy. This may be because we think of God as Abba Daddy and Dad. Scripture says no chastisement seems pleasant while going through it but after yields fruit of righteousness which is all good knowing as I say Dad did it and Who Daddy is!!! Which is going to glorify God more one who's touched in their thigh like Jacob by wrestling with God with these issues of Who is God,,,,or one who never opens to God's attributes if I say for inclusionist or universalist issues in a negative sense? Then I feel we can't allow our good to be evil spoken of but philosophically we rejoice in healing of our view of the nature of God by good being our less opinion of penal substitution!
ReplyDeleteSteve thanks for your response. I agree with you on the faith issue but what I was referring to was the penal value of the substitutionary death. If there was no punishment involved then how can anyone be punished for sins. Or to put in others words if someone rejects Jesus they are not rejecting Him as the punishment for their sins since we are stating that never took place. Yet he became sin for us who knew no sin. These are sincere Berean questions for those who are thinking it through to its logical end. I like yourself don’t have all the answers but at this point in time how does one reconcile non-penal and substitution and Hell? We can’t tell someone God is going to punish them in Hell if we do not believe in Jesus as the one punished in your place. Then one would have a legitimate case that it is not true substitution.
ReplyDeleteGreat question, John. My answer is that I don't think hell is punishment for sin. Hell is the ongoing refusal to accept God's acceptance. The torment of hell is the result of sin reaching its ultimate result - death. In other words, people who refuse to accept the Father's love will be punished by their sin not punished by God. There were early church Father's who taught that heaven and hell are determined by how one relates to the love of God. I believe that too. The love of God to a believer is a comforting embrace but to the arrogant and independent God-hater, that same love is a suffocating stench that torments.
ReplyDeleteJohn - I just noticed that I failed to respond to your substitution point. Let me explain my view this way: We had a disease (sin) and Jesus took that disease into Himself. He died from the disease but rose again. In his dying He gave us "a blood transfusion" that cured us of the disease. He gave us his healthy (sinless) blood and took our diseased blood (sin) into himself. He died so that we could be healed and not have to die. That's substitution in any sense of the word, but it's not punishment.
ReplyDeleteThat is good and I agree this does not violate God's character nor His Justice. God is just (In that he dealt with the adamic sin) and the justifier of Him that believes in Jesus (impute s righteousness to all thos who believe). I am seeing that the law was actually implemented by Adan and was written down by Moses. That God has brought the human race back to the garden so each may choose.
ReplyDeleteSteve, I agree. Organicly the problem is to obtain a cure for the disease of death caused by the actts of sin(s). Every choice of believers to believe God rather than allow religion to form or law to disfigure or disgrace the garden is eternal grace redemption of the 'purchased possession' Ephesians one. We're laying up treasure in heaven in allowing the love of God on the cross to lift condemnation and consequences of sinful living from us from our past to a limited I'll grant you degree. But God is on the move to eradicate and reverse the results of the 'fall' by reconciling us at salvation and recreating redemptive choices through us afterwards. If we indeed as you say it receive a 'blood transfusion' at the cross it is "within the body" and the body is conserved like Laws of Thermodynamics where energy is neither created nor destroyed but just changed from matter and back to it in a purely classical natural science sense, the world being the battleground and us in our personal bodies the prize. The soma (greek for human body) is being progressively saved from the sarx (Greek for sinful lifestyle cause of sinful nature to blame before accepting Christ) in we believers as we make the choices to believe the God of the finished work. I'll end there in saying it is a progressive cleansing or purging. Is there a problem at all with substitutuion in the reconciliation view? Like you I agree there is not. Explaining organic conserving and the transfusion of Christ's blood is sufficient. Penal view becomes small. God bless you Steve for pioneering a frontier in this reconciliation view of the cross in a grace walk! Dave Candel
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matthew. I believe that Jesus quoted the opening words of Psalm 22. That explains why He would address His Father in this manner contrary to how He had always done. Imagine the reaction of those that heard Him quote the opening lines and as their minds rehearsed the rest of the Psalm, perhaps a favourite from their hymnbook, they would have been astounded by the realization that it was unfolding before their very eyes. As for the commonly accepted concept of God turning His back, I find it unreasonable, not to mention unscriptural, that God could actually not see. David pointed out in Psalm 139 that there was nowhere that God could not see, even the depths of Sheol. His omnipresence demands that He sees everything, without exception. If God had to turn His back because He could not look upon His own Son, or the sin that He bore, then I guess there is a limit to how much that God can bear. That does not sound like the God that I worship and have come to know. He was not only able to look upon me in my sin but was able to get close enough to whisper in my ear that He was not only there but able to save me and lift me up from the mess that I had become. He did not turn His back to me. How could I expect that He would turn His back on His own Son in whom He was well pleased?
ReplyDeleteAnd God looked down from heaven, pointed to the people at the foot of the cross and answered "FOR THEM!"
ReplyDeleteNo, God did not forsake Jesus, or us. Jesus knew from the beginning that He would have to pay the price for our sin. For them, for you and I, for every man that has lived upon this earth. THAT is why. Thank you Lord, for taking my place on the cross!