Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------
This may be one of the worst Bible teachings we've ever read. We don't say that lightly. The author completely perverts the work of the cross, rejects the meaning of terms because they conflict with his doctrine, and lies to us about the Bible.
This is so astonishing that we found ourselves at loss for words. He writes:
The theological term for Jesus’ act of drinking the cup is propitiation. A modern dictionary will say that to propitiate means “to appease” or “to placate.” I find these definitions unsatisfactory...
Did the reader catch that? The meaning of a word is unsatisfactory because it is at odds with his doctrine. This is the unfortunate logical extension of the author's Calvinism/Reformed doctrine, the precepts of which are, we believe, deception. Yes, we must conclude that if one's doctrine supersedes the meaning of Bible words, it can only be deception.
On what basis does the author reject the propitiary nature of Jesus' sacrificial death? Certainly not a biblical one, because he supplies no Scripture that tells us the Father punished Jesus in our place. Here's the author's problem. If Jesus did propitiate (turn way the Father's wrath), then the Father, being satisfied, had no need to punish Jesus. The author cannot accept this, because His doctrinal tradition teaches that the Father punished Jesus in our place.
This article eminently qualifies for our label, Bad Bible Teaching. We discuss the substantial problems related to Penal Substitutionary Atonement here. We discuss how substitution contradicts propitiation here.
------------------------
Isaiah wrote prophetically of Jesus that He was “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (Isa. 53:3). Though those words were descriptive of His entire life, we see them coming to a climax in the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will” (Matt. 26:39). Luke tells us that Jesus was in such agony as He prayed that “His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:44).
What was it that caused Jesus such agony? Why did He pray that, if possible, He might not drink of the cup (John 18:11)? What was in the cup that was so utterly distressing to Jesus as He contemplated drinking of it? We naturally associate Jesus’ cup with the crucifixion and assume that He was praying that He might be spared the wretched and degrading death on the cross. The cup was indeed connected with the crucifixion, but we still have not answered the question: What was in the cup? (Our answer: The pain and travail of the events that would occur between that moment and His resurrection. He was betrayed, beaten, tortured, put to death, and spent 3 days and three nights in the grave. That's what was in the cup, and that's the reason for His anguish.)
In both the Old and New Testaments, the cup is often used as a metaphor for the wrath of God (Ps. 75:8; Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15; Hab. 2:16; Rev. 14:9–10). The cup, then, that Jesus found so abhorrent to drink was a cup filled with the wrath of God. (If this is true, what cup did the apostles drink from?
Isaiah wrote prophetically of Jesus that He was “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (Isa. 53:3). Though those words were descriptive of His entire life, we see them coming to a climax in the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will” (Matt. 26:39). Luke tells us that Jesus was in such agony as He prayed that “His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:44).
What was it that caused Jesus such agony? Why did He pray that, if possible, He might not drink of the cup (John 18:11)? What was in the cup that was so utterly distressing to Jesus as He contemplated drinking of it? We naturally associate Jesus’ cup with the crucifixion and assume that He was praying that He might be spared the wretched and degrading death on the cross. The cup was indeed connected with the crucifixion, but we still have not answered the question: What was in the cup? (Our answer: The pain and travail of the events that would occur between that moment and His resurrection. He was betrayed, beaten, tortured, put to death, and spent 3 days and three nights in the grave. That's what was in the cup, and that's the reason for His anguish.)
In both the Old and New Testaments, the cup is often used as a metaphor for the wrath of God (Ps. 75:8; Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15; Hab. 2:16; Rev. 14:9–10). The cup, then, that Jesus found so abhorrent to drink was a cup filled with the wrath of God. (If this is true, what cup did the apostles drink from?
Mt. 20:22-23 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”
"My cup." Did these two apostles drink of the cup of God's wrath? Or did they instead drink of the same cup of suffering Jesus was destined for? We think the answer is obvious, that Jesus was referring to the same cup for him and those apostles. The cup from which He drank is the same cup from which the apostles drank: Pain, beatings, hardship, persecution, and suffering for the sake of the Gospel. There is no way the apostles could or would drink from the cup of God's wrath.
Further, the reader might notice that the references provided by the author refer to the cup of wrath in reference to nations or groups in judgment for their unrighteousness. But Jesus' death was for all, not individual nations.
We think it's clear the author rips the cup of Christ from its context.)
In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was staring intently into that cup — the one He would drink the very next day as He hung on the cross in excruciating agony.
But it was not the physical agony that Jesus so dreaded, as horrible as that was; rather, it was the spiritual agony He foresaw as He would drink to its last bitter dregs the cup of God’s wrath, the wrath that we actually deserved. (This is the crux of the author's doctrine, which he never does document. We reject it summarily, because it simply did not happen.
But it was not the physical agony that Jesus so dreaded, as horrible as that was; rather, it was the spiritual agony He foresaw as He would drink to its last bitter dregs the cup of God’s wrath, the wrath that we actually deserved. (This is the crux of the author's doctrine, which he never does document. We reject it summarily, because it simply did not happen.
The author pirated the reference to "dregs" from Ps. 75:8:
In the hand of the LORD is a cup full of foaming wine mixed with spices; he pours it out, and all the wicked of the earth drink it down to its very dregs.
In this verse and the other verses the wicked gladly drank every last drop, a metaphor for the wrath of God coming down upon them completely. They were destroyed. That's what it means to drink the dregs. There's absolutely nothing left of the wrath which means there's absolutely nothing left of the judged nation.
Yes, we're picking nits regarding the author's use of language, but it's an issue. If the author is going to invoke verses like these, he needs to explain how only some of the details apply to Jesus.)
This brings us to a difficult subject of the Bible, one that is denied by many Bible scholars and ignored by most of us. We simply do not like to think about the wrath of God. Why? (We don't have a problem at all with God having wrath, we have a problem with Jesus supposedly experiencing it.)
Perhaps we shy away from the expression “the wrath of God” because of the violent emotions and destructive behavior that is frequently associated with the term wrath when used of sinful human beings. More likely, we don’t want to think of our nice, friendly, but unbelieving neighbors and relatives as subject to the wrath of God.
If we take the Bible seriously, however, we must take seriously the subject of God’s wrath. It is a theme that runs throughout both the Old and New Testaments. One theologian has stated that the number of references to God’s wrath in the Old Testament exceeds 580. What about the New Testament? Some people teach that the subject of God’s wrath disappears in the New Testament and that His love and mercy become the only expressions of God’s attitude toward humanity.
Jesus clearly refutes that notion. In John 3:36 He says, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.” Paul wrote frequently of the wrath of God (for example, Rom. 1:18; 2:5; 5:9; Eph. 2:3; Col. 3:6). Finally, the whole tenor of Revelation warns us of the wrath to come (6:16–17; 14:10; 16:19; 19:15).
What is it that so provokes the wrath of God? It is our sin. Regardless of how small or insignificant it may seem to us, all sin is an assault on the infinite majesty and sovereign authority of God. God, by the perfection of His moral nature, cannot but be hostile to sin — all sin, be it ever so small in our eyes. (The author gets this all correct...)
Perhaps we shy away from the expression “the wrath of God” because of the violent emotions and destructive behavior that is frequently associated with the term wrath when used of sinful human beings. More likely, we don’t want to think of our nice, friendly, but unbelieving neighbors and relatives as subject to the wrath of God.
If we take the Bible seriously, however, we must take seriously the subject of God’s wrath. It is a theme that runs throughout both the Old and New Testaments. One theologian has stated that the number of references to God’s wrath in the Old Testament exceeds 580. What about the New Testament? Some people teach that the subject of God’s wrath disappears in the New Testament and that His love and mercy become the only expressions of God’s attitude toward humanity.
Jesus clearly refutes that notion. In John 3:36 He says, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.” Paul wrote frequently of the wrath of God (for example, Rom. 1:18; 2:5; 5:9; Eph. 2:3; Col. 3:6). Finally, the whole tenor of Revelation warns us of the wrath to come (6:16–17; 14:10; 16:19; 19:15).
What is it that so provokes the wrath of God? It is our sin. Regardless of how small or insignificant it may seem to us, all sin is an assault on the infinite majesty and sovereign authority of God. God, by the perfection of His moral nature, cannot but be hostile to sin — all sin, be it ever so small in our eyes. (The author gets this all correct...)
It was God’s wrath toward our sin that Jesus saw in the cup that night and from which He recoiled in such agony. (...then returns to his theory.)
So Jesus drank the cup of the wrath of God in our place. (Key Bible documentation disappears again.)
So Jesus drank the cup of the wrath of God in our place. (Key Bible documentation disappears again.)
He endured the unimaginable spiritual agony we deserve so that we would be saved by Him from the wrath of God. (Jesus was not punished by the Father for our sins.)
We will never appreciate Jesus’ agonizing prayer in Gethsemane; we will never appreciate His sweating, as it were, great drops of blood, until we grasp in the depths of our beings that Jesus was staring at the wrath of God we deserve.
The theological term for Jesus’ act of drinking the cup is propitiation. A modern dictionary will say that to propitiate means “to appease” or “to placate.” I find these definitions unsatisfactory when applied to Christ because they suggest a soothing or softening the wrath of an offended deity. (Here it is. The author rejects the plain meaning of Bible words because they violate his doctrine.
The theological term for Jesus’ act of drinking the cup is propitiation. A modern dictionary will say that to propitiate means “to appease” or “to placate.” I find these definitions unsatisfactory when applied to Christ because they suggest a soothing or softening the wrath of an offended deity. (Here it is. The author rejects the plain meaning of Bible words because they violate his doctrine.
Let's look at the Greek words involved. First:
Ro. 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. [NIV]
Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood... [KJV]
The Greek word here is hilastērion, relating to appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory...
[Also found in Hebrews 9:5 describing the Mercy Seat]
Second:
He. 2:17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. [NIV]
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. [KJV]
This is hilaskesthai, to extend propitiation, showing mercy by satisfying [literally, propitiating] the wrath of God on sin; "to conciliate, appease, propitiate..."
Third:
1Jn. 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. [NIV]
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. [KJV]
1Jn. 4:10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. [NIV]
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins. [KJV]
The word here is hilasmos, propitiation; an offering to appease [satisfy] an angry, offended party.
These are all related words, and all mean fundamentally the same thing. The act of propitiation appeases God's wrath. This is what Jesus did. He didn't divert God's wrath, He satisfied it. The word "propitiation" is meaningless if Jesus received our punishment, because if He was punished He didn't propitiate.)
Jesus did not soothe the wrath of God — He endured it. He did not suppress or extinguish it as we would extinguish a fire; rather, He absorbed in His own soul the full, unmitigated fury of God’s wrath against sin. (Thus the author completely contradicts the work of Jesus on the cross. This makes him a false teacher.)
To continue with the metaphor, He drank the cup of God’s wrath to its last bitter drop. So for us who believe, the cup of God’s wrath is empty. (Waaait. If He drank the cup of God's wrath, then it's gone. There's no more wrath. Which means no wrath even remains for the unrighteous. So this must mean He drank only part of the cup, enough to save a few. Therefore, He did not drink to the "last bitter drop.")
We read the story of Gethsemane and the crucifixion so often that it has a tendency to become commonplace. If this is true of us, may we repent. And may we never again read Jesus’ prayer of anguish without reminding ourselves that it was God’s wrath against our sin that caused Him such unimaginable agony.
We read the story of Gethsemane and the crucifixion so often that it has a tendency to become commonplace. If this is true of us, may we repent. And may we never again read Jesus’ prayer of anguish without reminding ourselves that it was God’s wrath against our sin that caused Him such unimaginable agony.
No comments:
Post a Comment