"God Damn You!"

[Ryan]

What happened on Good Friday?

 

R.C. Sproul says that God the Father says to the Son on the cross, "God Damn You!"  That Christ bears the curse as God hates / damns the Son and pours out His wrath for our sin on the Son.  And that Jesus receives the Father's wrath equivalent to everlasting punishment in hell for our sins.

 

Is this what happened?  Why or why not?

[Daniel]

Just what does it mean when God "damns" someone?  I think it is typically associated with eternal damnation, and I don't see that here.

[E. A. Johnston]

No disrespect to R. C. Sproul, who hitherto I have considered an excellent source. But. The first thing I heard him say on the video was, "My sin was placed upon Him. The One who was pure was pure no more. And God cursed Him. It was as if there was a cry from heaven--excuse my language, but I can be no more accurate than to say, 'God damn You.'

That is absolutely wrong. It confused the doctrine of substitution with the doctrine of identification. It is deplorable, and borders on heretical (if it does not cross the line). 

“With respect to the relation between guilt and the idea of substitution it is seen that the term guilt is commonly employed both in the sense of blameworthiness and legal answerableness. It is used in both senses when applied with respect to the actual transgressor, but only in the latter sense, and by no means the former, when used with respect to the representative or substitute who bears the guilt of the sinner.” (The Doctrine of Substitution in the Old Testament: Fulfilled in Christ by Dr. Hobart E. Freeman; p 57)

 I am appalled.  And deeply disturbed. And terribly saddened. 

[Norrin Radd]

Given that Scripture explicitly says that "He bore our sins in His body on the Cross" and "cursed by everyone who hangs on a tree," what exactly is specific point of dispute with Sproul?

Also, I'm not sure Hobart Freeman is exactly a reliable source.  He was a proponent of Word-Faith theology -- by some accounts a rather extreme one in fact -- and the publication you cited happened to be his main point of departure from "standard" Word-Faith doctrines.

If it sounds like I'm on both sides of this issue, that's entirely possible.

[E. A. Johnston]

I cannot disagree with you about Freeman being off on some things. But to rule out the quote based on things he had wrong elsewhere is an ad hominem argument. And yes, that was his most significant departure from W-F. And that significance is huge. I have a copy of his doctrinal dissertation on the doctrine of substitution. I have studied it and the Word on this; it is mt "hobby-horse," if you will. Freeman has it right on this very important subject.

Christians must realize that Calvary did not happen in a vacuum. It was prefigured repeatedly in the OT, especially Leviticus. Jesus is our Passover Lamb. He bore the punishment of our sin; He did not become sin. There was no forsaking. There was no rift in the Trinity. The Father did not hate the Son while He perfectly obeyed His will by laying down His life on our behalf. 

Norrin Radd said:

Given that Scripture explicitly says that "He bore our sins in His body on the Cross" and "cursed by everyone who hangs on a tree," what exactly is specific point of dispute with Sproul?

Also, I'm not sure Hobart Freeman is exactly a reliable source.  He was a proponent of Word-Faith theology -- by some accounts a rather extreme one in fact -- and the publication you cited happened to be his main point of departure from "standard" Word-Faith doctrines.

If it sounds like I'm on both sides of this issue, that's entirely possible.

[E. A. Johnston]

. . . they have confounded sin with the punishment due to sin. Christ suffered in our stead; died for us; bore our sins, ([i.e.,]the punishment due to them), in his own body upon the tree, for the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all; that is, the punishment due to them; explained by making his soul - his life, an offering for sin [i.e., not literal sin, but a sin offering]; and healing us by his stripes. --Adam Clarke

[E. A. Johnston]

Another reason God did not "damn" Jesus (but ordained that he would bear the punishment of our sin):

“This idea of inseparability of the persons takes us to a principle known as inseparable operation. As Augustine of Hippo put it, ‘the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so [They] work indivisibly. The principle of inseparable operation highlights that the persons of the Trinity do not act without each other any more than they can exist without each other… That is important, because it safeguards the claim that our salvation is the work of the triune God, not an action done by one of the persons of the Trinity acting independently, much less by one person acting against the others…the Trinity is one God in three persons who always act together, with unity of purpose.” (Pierced For Our Transgressions by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach; pp 129, 130)

[Tim]

@ E.A.: Wow! Dude, you hit the nail right on the head, brother! Amen!

[Bit Brush]

Fist off, Jesus had already been entombed since Wednesday evening so I doubt there was any discussion going on like that. That time table didn't hit me until several years ago now when the Jewish observance coincided with Easter Sunday. Tuesday night started his trial and by Wednesday morning he was condemned and was placed on the cross. The blood of the lamb placed on the posts of the door. He had to be entombed by 6 o'clock Wednesday evening as Thursday was the first day of Passover that year. So from 6pm Wednesday to 6 pm Saturday is our three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. 6pm Saturday was the start of Sunday and at first light Sunday he was already resurrected. Someone had a sermon on why three days. I guess beside it matching the story of Jonas, the common belief was that one wasn't really dead dead until the third day. Just look at the case of Lazarus. When Jesus was talking to Lazarus' family, the work "stink" was used to describe Lazarus' current condition. He was dead dead. No possibility to awaken on his own when Jesus showed up to resurrect him. So Jesus was entombed the prescribed three days to ensure to all he was dead dead.

C.S. Lewis was given to bouts of drama anyway. Saying something controversial drew attention to the point he wanted to make.

[E. A. Johnston]

Bit, I think you are confusing threads. This one is not at all about the truthfulness of Jesus death and resurrection (much less about the day of His crucifixion.) 

Bit Brush said:

Fist off, Jesus had already been entombed since Wednesday evening so I doubt there was any discussion going on like that. That time table didn't hit me until several years ago now when the Jewish observance coincided with Easter Sunday. Tuesday night started his trial and by Wednesday morning he was condemned and was placed on the cross. The blood of the lamb placed on the posts of the door. He had to be entombed by 6 o'clock Wednesday evening as Thursday was the first day of Passover that year. So from 6pm Wednesday to 6 pm Saturday is our three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. 6pm Saturday was the start of Sunday and at first light Sunday he was already resurrected. Someone had a sermon on why three days. I guess beside it matching the story of Jonas, the common belief was that one wasn't really dead dead until the third day. Just look at the case of Lazarus. When Jesus was talking to Lazarus' family, the work "stink" was used to describe Lazarus' current condition. He was dead dead. No possibility to awaken on his own when Jesus showed up to resurrect him. So Jesus was entombed the prescribed three days to ensure to all he was dead dead.

C.S. Lewis was given to bouts of drama anyway. Saying something controversial drew attention to the point he wanted to make.

[Jax Agnesson]

Hi, EA. I'm confused about this 'Passover Lamb' reference.

Isn't the 'passover lamb' the one whose blood was smeared on the doorposts of the Israelites when the Angel came down to slay the firstborn of every Egyptian house?

And isn't Christ's taking on of the world's sin more comparable to the tradition of scapegoat?

E. A. Long said:

Christians must realize that Calvary did not happen in a vacuum. It was prefigured repeatedly in the OT, especially Leviticus. Jesus is our Passover Lamb. He bore the punishment of our sin; He did not become sin. There was no forsaking. There was no rift in the Trinity. The Father did not hate the Son while He perfectly obeyed His will by laying down His life on our behalf. 

[E. A. Johnston]

Great question, Jax

The depth of the atonement is impossible to portray in a single snapshot. The scapegoat illustrated the complete removal of sin, the Passover Lamb represented the payment of the sin debt by Jesus Christ for those who appropriate that unspeakable gift by faith. John 1:29.

Jax Agnesson said:

Hi, EA. I'm confused about this 'Passover Lamb' reference.

Isn't the 'passover lamb' the one whose blood was smeared on the doorposts of the Israelites when the Angel came down to slay the firstborn of every Egyptian house?

And isn't Christ's taking on of the world's sin more comparable to the tradition of scapegoat?

E. A. Long said:

Christians must realize that Calvary did not happen in a vacuum. It was prefigured repeatedly in the OT, especially Leviticus. Jesus is our Passover Lamb. He bore the punishment of our sin; He did not become sin. There was no forsaking. There was no rift in the Trinity. The Father did not hate the Son while He perfectly obeyed His will by laying down His life on our behalf. 

[Ryan]

What about this as an alternative...  Christ offered Himself up in self-sacrificial love to the Father (as opposed to bearing the punishment of the Father's wrath), obedient even unto death, for the sins of all men. The Father was never angry with Christ. Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son. The Passion is Christ’s greatest act of love, the greatest revelation of the heart of God, and the glory of Christ.  This would also explain why Christ retained His five wounds in His resurrected body and why Paul preaches Christ crucified.

If this were true then on the cross, God the Father was not pouring out His wrath on His Son, but rather Christ's act of self-sacrifice in loving obedience to the Father, Christ was most lovable in the eyes of the Father.  Could it be that we humans poured out our enmity with God on Christ, by what we did to Him in His body and soul?  And He freely chose to let us do all this to Him.

If Christ was not punished by the Father, the atonement was made for the sins of all men by offering to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than all the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him.

This keeps the Trinity completely in tact, in consistent love and atones for the sins of the elect.  It would be by His love for us that our sins are atoned, not because of the Father's wrath was satisfied on His Son.

What do you think?