Why Was Jesus Flogged? – A Confirmation of Propitiatory Atonement - by John Stevens

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------------

The author attempts to apply every little detail of the prophecy delivered to David by Nathan. Because it fits his theology he pounces on one part, the punishment by flogging.

We cannot do this with these Bible passages. 

Some of what was written applies specifically to the actual situation, while at the same time is intermixed with messianic statements. Not everything contained therein is messianic, and that's where the author fails. 

For example, Psalm 22 is a profoundly messianic passage. Yet in the middle of it we find this verse: 

Ps. 22:20-21 Deliver my life from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs. 21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

Jesus' life was never imperiled by the sword. He was not rescued from wild animals. David was.

In Psalm 45 we find this:

Ps. 45:9 Daughters of kings are among your honored women; at your right hand is the royal bride in gold of Ophir.

No daughters of kings attended to Jesus.

And from the author's second example, Psalm 89:

Ps. 89:43 You have turned back the edge of his sword and have not supported him in battle.

Jesus never was unsupported as He wielded a sword in battle.

There are many examples of this throughout the Bible. Simply because there are messianic statements in a passage does not mean everything in the passage is messianic.

----------------------

Sometimes, you read the Bible, and providence (Providence? What does this mean?)

means you are confronted by several interconnected passages simultaneously. This causes you to see something more clearly than you might if you read them in isolation.

Earlier this week, I was preparing for the service I am leading on Sunday. We are reading 2 Samuel 7v8-16, which is God’s promise to David. In verses 14-16, God says:

‘I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’ (The author is selectively quoting. Just before this we find: 

2Sa. 7:12-13 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

The immediate context for this passage is the prophecy Nathan told to David, where David wanted to build a temple for the LORD. The prophecy says that David's son (Solomon) would be the king to actually built the temple.

Jesus never rested with His fathers and He never had a son who would build the temple. This is what we mean by saying not every statement is messianic.)

At the same time, I read 2 Kings and Psalm 89 in my devotions. 1 & 2 Kings tell the sorry history of the failure of the descendants of David to keep the terms of the covenant, with the result that they are subjected to God’s discipline in the exile. Psalm 89 laments the unfaithfulness of David’s descendants, which has brought the wrath of God upon them and their people. Verses 30-33 reiterate the warning and promises of 2 Samuel 7:

“If his sons forsake my law and do not follow my statutes, if they violate my decrees and fail to keep my commands, I will punish their sin with the rod, their iniquity with flogging; but I will not take my love from him, nor will I ever betray my faithfulness.’

I think we under appreciate the significance of the fact that Jesus was flogged prior to his crucifixion. It is not just an incidental detail, nor merely part of the process of crucifixion. (His cruel treatment was prophesied, which simply means the flogging is an identifier of the Messiah. However, the mistreatment of Jesus has no eternal impact on the sinner.)

It signals that Jesus is fulfilling the Davidic covenant on behalf his people.

Jesus fulfils both aspects of the promises of God to David. He is the faithful Son who perfectly obeys. As a result, his eternal kingdom is established. At the same time, he bears on himself the punishment deserved by David’s descendants for their unfaithfulness. (The author makes a spectacular leap to an unwarranted conclusion. The Father's will was indeed that Jesus be mistreated and tortured. But there is no Bible verse that tells us Jesus was punished for our sin.)

He bears their sin (Let's be clear. "Bear" does not mean "bear punishment." In the OT, "bear" is cabal, to bear or carry a load, whether physical or metaphorical:

Is. 53:11 ...my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

Here's a NT example. "Bear" is anapheró, to carry or bring something up, often in the context of offering or presenting something to a higher authority or place:

He. 9:28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Jesus bore our sin like a burden to be carried. It does not mean He was punished by the Father.)

and becomes sin in their place. (The author is incorrectly paraphrasing 2Co. 5:21:

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Maybe this is why the author doesn't actually quote the verse. Notice that Jesus did not become sin, God made Him to be sin. Notice also the verse does not say "in their place." 

We discuss this verse in detail here.)

He is punished with the rod of God’s wrath. (This did not happen. There is no verse that says that Jesus received the Father's wrath or that the Father punished Him.)

This is simply another example of the way in which Biblical typology works. (What about the typology of the OT sacrifices, sir? The animal was never punished, was not imputed with sin, and was never regarded as a substitute.)

Jesus fulfils both the blessing and curse elements of the covenant promises under the Old Covenant. He is the only faithful one who fulfils the conditions for God’s blessing. He also removes the curse that our unfaithfulness deserves by taking it upon himself. (A series of undocumented statements.)

These twin aspects of fulfilment are seen in the cross and the resurrection. On the cross, Jesus bears the judgment for unfaithfulness. In the resurrection, he received the reward for perfect faithfulness.

The covenant made with David in 2 Samuel 7 is the foundation of the messianic hope. The Davidic covenant is how the blessing promised by the Abrahamic covenant is obtained. It is easy to see the fulfilment of the promise of an obedient son who gains a never-ending throne. We perhaps struggle to see how the warning about flogging applies to him. (Now why would that be? Perhaps because it doesn't make sense and is in fact unbiblical?)

I think it makes the most sense to see both fulfilled in him.

The flogging of Jesus in the gospel accounts of the crucifixion is more significant than we think. (As we previously mentioned, the punishment inflicted on Jesus was simply a fulfillment of prophecy. It has no remedial effect.)

It helps us to see clearly that he bears the wrath of God for our unfaithfulness. Both 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 89v32 make clear that it is God the Father who is directly punishing his son. (No, this is not true.)

This brings us to the heart of the cross and what is happening when Jesus dies. Those who reject propitiatory atonement essentially reject the idea that Jesus is bearing the wrath of God but is in some way bearing the consequences of sin or power of evil without any direct involvement of God the Father. (This is confused thinking. There is no such thing as "propitiatory atonement." Propitiation is not atonement. The Greek word is hilastérion, the turning away or satisfaction of wrath. The KJV properly translates the word:

Ro. 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood...

while other versions translate it "atonement." "Atonement" is misleading, because in the OT to atone (kaphar) means to cover over. In fact, the first use of kaphar is here:

Ge. 6:14 So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.

So atonement merely hides or "coats" sin, while propitiation turns away and satisfies God's wrath completely. The two words are not the same.

As far as "bearing the consequences of sin or power of evil without any direct involvement of God the Father," we have no idea what this means, since we don't believe Jesus' death on the cross has anything to do with Him experiencing the consequences of sin.)

If we take 2 Samuel 7 seriously, this is an entirely inadequate understanding of the cross. The Father is punishing the son for his iniquity - the iniquity of others that he has voluntarily taken upon himself. (The author repeats himself but still does not document his statement.)

He has truly become sin, and so God punishes sin in him. (God does not punish sin. There is no Bible verse that says so. Rather, God punishes sinners.)

He uses human agents/instruments to fulfil his purpose (‘flogging inflicted by human hands’). Just as God used the Assyrians and Babylonians as agents of his wrath and punishment of the unfaithful kings in the exile, so he uses the Romans as his agents of wrath towards Jesus, who has taken unfaithfulness on himself. (He keeps repeating himself.)

It remains God’s wrath inflicted by human hands. The flogging of Jesus is strong evidence that the cross is a propitiation of the Father’s wrath. No other ‘model of the atonement’ can explain the reference. (This borders on arrogance. 

There is indeed a "model of the atonement" that explains the cross. Jesus, the lamb of God, died on the cross as a sacrifice for sin. The spilled blood was fully satisfying to the Father and turned away His wrath. As a result, there was no reason for the Father to punish Jesus. The blood was enough.)