"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?

[Marv]

Phil, surely you're joking.

Though I know you're not.

No I don't see "what [you] mean about favorite theories etc." Except if you mean Kelly's "theory" that OT sacrifices were not "about" forgiveness of sins. A nano-second's glance will show anyone capable of reading that such a statement is untrue--at least very incomplete and misleading. As is your statement about them not being "about" propitiation of wrath. These elements are there. Right there.

And I apologize for stooping to employment of Scripture. I should have known better, but I'm not that well versed in my Fathers.

That there is more to be said about sacrifices, their place in God's reign over the earth and His redemption of His world is not in the least minimized or denied by my falsification (easy falsification) of a couple of errant propositions.

The statements in the Psalms are in no way contradictory to the rest of Scripture. And they CERTAINLY don't counter any point I've made here, though Kelly appears to imagine so. Of course God delights in the love and relationship of His children and hearts turning to Him in repentance. I've said absolutely nothing to the contrary.

But that guilt is objectively real--and requires a measure before God which we cannot achieve, and which repentence at any time will not supply, and will not reverse the sins done before--is foundational to Christians being Christians. But that this measure is the blood of Christ--not the blood of bulls and goats, which served a purpose by pointing to Christ--underlines why what delights God is not the sacrifices--though HE HIMSELF prescribed them.

 

But you know all this.

 

Phil said:

Marv, that's what I meant about favorite theories blinding us as to what is or isn't actually in the text.

E.A appeals to the clear testimony of Leviticus. You find the sacrifices to be about propitiating wrath. Where is that emphasized as the underlying motive of blood sacrifices per se in the texts that required those sacrifices? Likewise, the passage in Hebrews that was cited. What was the purpose of the blood?

[Phil James]

Marv, that's a lot of typing, when a single reference tying the blood sacrifices of Leviticus and God's wrath would have sufficed. How come?

I don't see anything to disagree with in Rey's comment- except I'd strengthen the 'probably' in the last sentence. :-)

[Otsukafan]

Marv,

Lets employ we know of God.  Or at least believe we do. Let me list some scenarios and see how they stand up to our opinions.

1.  I am a benjamite shepherd in Old Testament days.  I've had a rough day tending sheep and come home in a bad mood and unjustly berate my wife.  I'm immediately convicted and ask her for forgiveness then ask God for forgiveness in my evening prayers. 6 months later I have eough money to sojourn many miles across the dessert with a large group to get to the taberbnacle to sacrifice.

When am I forgiven?  When I ask for it in prayer, or when I sacrifice 6 months later?

2.  My son takes my car in the middle of the night and dings the bumper on post at the drive through.  The next morning he comes to me remorsefully and asks me to forgive him and vows to work a summer job to pay for it.  

Do I, as a loving Father, forgive him when he asks or reserve forgiveness until he fully pays me for the damage?

Last question is about God's Wrath.

Isn't it true, when we exhibit love we can demonstrate God in us?  Also peace, mercy, charity, etc.  But when we exhibit wrath, who do we demonstrate?  There are no beatitudes that bless anyone for wrath.  God's wrath is a mystery to us, but His love, grace and mercy is well revealed.  Let's put things in context of what we know and what we can do, not of what is itself unknowable.

[Otsukafan]

nothing more?

[Phil James]

What are you expecting Kelly- a reference linking wrath and Levitical sacrifice in the OT or something? :-)

[Otsukafan]

lol...phil, we have got to find a way to sit down over a cup of coffee some day.  

Phil said:

What are you expecting Kelly- a reference linking wrath and Levitical sacrifice in the OT or something? :-)

[Phil James]

I'd like that.

[Phil James]

Kelly, unless there is a passage out there that I’m not aware of (likely, that), I’d say your boy was fine with his God back there in the tent- or better, God was fine with the boy.

It seems to me that it’s a mistake to view the declaration in Hebrews as some abstract universal principle: before a person can be forgiven, someone or something has to die. Rather the writer was making a point about what went on in Israel’s cult- generally, everything was cleansed with blood.

But also within that same system we know that…

Forgiveness was not limited to those who could afford a ‘proper’ sacrifice. God didn’t privilege the rich in that way. The destitute could bring flour as a sin offering. Lev 5:11. Can’t get blood from a turnip or a wheat berry.

Blood sacrifice could make atonement, but so could burning incense according to Numbers 16:46-47. Works of charity made atonement for one’s soul according to Exodus 30:15-16 and Numbers 31:50.

When Solomon completed the temple, he made a speech and prayed a prayer thanking God for his presence with the Jewish people- a presence attested to by the temple. He talked about oaths, etc but never mentioned sacrifices ( I Kings 8; II Chronicles 6). The emphasis on the significance of the temple seemed to be other than what I was raised to expect. The king did, however, point out that if the people ever found themselves exiled and without a Temple…

"If they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who have taken them captive, and pray to You toward their land which You have given to their fathers, the city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name; then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who have sinned against You and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against You..." (I Kings 8:46-50)

So it seems that ancient Israel believed that repentance and prayer was an effectual means of atonement.

Why blood?  Growing up, I was taught that the blood was applied as proof that justice had been done. Blood represented death, but I now believe that blood was specified because it represented life. It was God’s application of life to the symbolic cosmos that was the tabernacle/temple that made atonement.  Life purified the contagion of death, and every aspect of creation, man and his tools needed that healing. And so as the writer of Hebrews reminds us- Everything was cleansed with blood.

It was the same counterintuitive contagion of purity that worked its way from the hem of Christ’s clothing into the unclean woman, and as the temple service made visible, the healing would one day flow 'far as the curse is found.'

It seems to me that the blood pointed to the Life of God, not an abstract demand for retributive justice.

 

 

[Rey Reynoso]

Above, a record for the google crawler, I forgot to add what I was quoting in regard to the obligations and dealing with sacrifices, temple practice, priests and God's wrath: Numbers 18.