‘Behold, the Lamb of God’
ide
o amnos tou theou
College Study
45th teaching
7.29.2013
“God’s Wrath”
Part II – its Satisfaction
Introductions.
Project
Scriptura:
Announce next week’s topic (God’s Justice), challenge each person to find ONE Bible verse about
this attribute of God to share next week, you may use any resource as long as
you find just one verse.
Review:
What was our topic last week? What New Testament
passage did we start our study in that had a lot to say about the wrath of God?
What’s one of the big difficulties in preaching and teaching about the wrath of
God? What’s more important: what people think about God or what God is actually
like? What is wrath? What, or whom, is the object of God’s wrath? Last week,
specifically, we looked at the nature of God’s wrath and six ways in which the wrath
of God relates to His other attributes; can anyone name some of these
relationships? (the wrath of God flows from His holiness, is in accordance with
His moral perfection, is as powerful as His omnipotence, is regulated by His
impassibility, is tethered by His longsuffering, and it’s what motivates His
justice) Also, what was the name of the sermon I mentioned that talked about
the wrath of God? What were the two questions we had for our two groups?
End Review
So last week, we sort of nailed down what exactly the wrath
of God is an a moral attribute and what the wrath of God is like. With this
doctrine in mind, that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against the
ungodly and unrighteous, we move now to look at God’s wrath in another way,
from another perspective. We’re going to revisit wrath and what we know about
wrath and ask some questions.
But first, by way of reminder, let us have our Project
Scriptura verses right away. This way, we’ll start off with the idea of God’s
wrath fresh in our minds. Let’s start off by turning to the book of Hebrews for our introductory text.
I picked Hebrews 10
as our launching point for tonight’s study because Hebrews is a New Testament
book that really helps to make sense of the Old Testament. Later on we’ll refer
to some Old Testament ideas, such as sacrifices and atonement, so Hebrews seems
then like a good place to start.
Hebrews 10:1-31
The writer of Hebrews starts the chapter by
illustrating how inadequate the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament under
the law were. They were incapable of taking away sins. He even shows that God
had no pleasure in these sacrifices.
Then, the writer brings in Christ and shows how the
sacrifice of Jesus is superior to the sacrifice of the animals under the law of
Moses. And thus the second replaces the first, the once-for-all sacrifice of
Christ replaces the need for the animal sacrificial system.
But the concluding statement in the passage we just read
show that while rejecting the law of Moses had consequences, so too rejecting
the sacrifice of Christ has consequences and that the LORD will avenge.
Definitely you see that the wrath of God is a very present reality for those
who reject the Son of God.
What verses did you find?
Acts
17:30-31/Ezekiel 25:17/Revelation 21:8/John 3:36/Revelation 14:10/I
Thessalonians 5:9/Ezekiel 14:7-8
So there we have the wrath of God. But tonight’s study is
called “God’s Wrath: its Satisfaction”. Here’s why I think this is an important
concept to address, the satisfaction of God’s wrath.
When my brother and I were in bible college, I remember
there was one day when I was sitting in the cafeteria and my brother comes in
and sits down with me. I could tell he had been leafing through his bible. Then
he said something like “Where does the Bible say that Jesus’ death satisfied
the wrath of God?” And at first, I was thinking like “silly younger brother…”
and then it dawned on me. Why, where does the Bible say that God’s wrath was
satisfied at the cross? And I felt something like a cold sweat that day. Where
is it? We skimmed the New Testament. We cross-referenced the Old Testament. We
asked our fellow classmates. Where? Where?
One of the hymns with which we are familiar is the one
entitled “In Christ Alone”. In this hymn, we often sing the words “Till on that
cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied”. I’ve always loved hymns
and I’ve always loved that particular hymn, even that particular verse in it.
But is this a true statement?
I even came across a bloggist who wrote “Whenever a
community is required to sing In Christ alone it needs to be accompanied by
teaching that what it seems to say, and what many people think it means, is
heresy”.
Come to find out, as is the case with so many of the
central attributes of God and doctrines of Scripture, there’s immense confusion
and debate even surrounding this question of whether Christ’s death satisfied
God’s wrath. In fact, there are groups and churches claiming that it is so much
as heresy to say that God’s wrath was satisfied at the cross, quoting Scripture
to show that God’s wrath is still very real and very present.
So then, the question is whether the satisfaction of God’s
wrath is or is not heresy and false teaching. Because if it is, if it can be
seen from Scripture to be false, then we must abandon it immediately. No one
wants to believe heresy. Heresy, as we all know, is bad.
Now let me say right from the start that I am a firm
believer in the satisfaction of God’s wrath at the cross. I do not believe that
it is heresy. Rather, I believe that when Jesus took on my sins and died in my
place, that the judgment of God for my sins, which judgment was motivated by
God’s wrath, was taken by Him in my place. He took my sins, my judgment and the
wrath that demanded that judgment.
We aim to answer this question in THREE points tonight:
1. Clarifying Challenges
2. Proof from Scripture
3. What is Propitiation?
1.
Clarifying Challenges
In our first point, we aim to address some of the arguments
and challenge brought against this teaching of satisfying God’s wrath.
The first challenge we’ll consider is a question of “If God’s
wrath is satisfied, then why does He still have wrath?”
The argument goes like this: “The Bible teaches that the
wrath of God is revealed against the ungodly, that the wicked are storing it up
for judgment and that someday God will pour out His wrath on the Earth. Since
there is wrath to come and present
wrath against the unrepentant, then God’s wrath could not have been satisfied.”
Is this a true argument?
We’ll we did read last week in Romans 1 that indeed God’s wrath is revealed against the ungodly,
that in fact the objects of God’s
wrath are unrepentant sinners. And we also know that there will certainly come
a day during the Tribulation when God will pour out His wrath upon the
inhabitants of a Christ-rejecting Earth.
So the first part is true, God’s wrath is present against the
unrepentant and future against the unrepentant.
But notice that the conclusion of the argument is false.
There is a confusion in this argument of the objects of God’s wrath. At the cross, the wrath of God was
satisfied and is satisfied for anyone who comes to the cross. But outside of
the cross, for the unrepentant, the wrath of God is very real.
Also, claiming that the wrath of God was satisfied in Jesus’
death is not the same as claiming
that God has no more wrath, that there can be no more judgments upon sinners
and the like. We know that certainly God has real wrath presently and in the
future for the unrepentant. However, this does not refuse the fact that at the cross the wrath of God was
satisfied for anyone who identifies themselves in the cross.
So at the cross
was satisfaction and being in the
cross is satisfaction of wrath. However, outside
the cross there is no satisfaction of God’s wrath.
I pulled this quote off of someone’s blog post. The writer
was saying how unbiblical it is to teach that God’s wrath was satisfied, then
they wrote this: “As we can see, the wrath of God was not poured out on Jesus
nor was it satisfied. The wrath of God
was not relinquished at the cross. The
wrath of God continues to rest upon impenitent sinners, because they have
rejected the only means of salvation available to them. God’s wrath can be removed. How? Through
repentance. Repentance is a change of mind, inclinations and desires, which
translates into a total change in character and conduct.”
Isn’t that exactly
what the satisfaction of God’s wrath is? Wrath for the unrepentant sinner and
safety, or a removal of God’s wrath, for the repentant believer? That’s the
same exact thing, merely with the word removed
standing in for satisfied.
I Thessalonians 5:9,
“For God did not appoint us to wrath, but
to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ…” Saved from the wrath of God.
The first challenge against the satisfaction of God’s wrath
falls flat. It’s a straw-man argument. It makes a false claim (that there’s no
more wrath for everyone) and then
knocks that false claim down. But we’re not saying there’s no more wrath for everyone. We’re saying that there’s no
more wrath for those who come to Jesus and His substitutionary death on the
cross. Certainly there is only safety only
in the cross. Outside of Jesus, the wrath of God is still revealed against the
ungodly.
So first challenge: shot down. It’s only a misconception
*Another challenge, a second challenge, to this teaching of
the satisfaction of God’s wrath is yet another misconception.
Opponents of this satisfaction-doctrine say that it is a
gross misunderstanding of who God is, because it portrays the Father as wanting
to furiously destroy sinners while His loving Son steps in and stops Him. It
would seem then like the Father has anger-management issues and the Son is what
restrains His anger. Opponents then will say how terrible of a picture this is
of God and thus the satisfaction-doctrine cannot be true.
This is yet another straw-man argument, a misconception of
what the satisfaction-doctrine is really saying. If you believe Jesus satisfied
the wrath of God, you are not saying that Jesus loved you more than the Father.
Note I John 4:9-10,
“In this the love of God was manifested
toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we
might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He
loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”
And certainly we know John
3:16, “For God so loved the world
that He sent…”
Do you remember when we studied the Persons of the Trinity?
There were three qualities of the Father. He is the Source of all things. He is
the Sender of the Son. He is the Planner of salvation. You definitely see from
Scripture that while God is angry with the wicked He also loved them enough to
send His only begotten Son into the world to die for sinners.
It truly is a misconception and really slander then to say
that Jesus loved us more than His Father, when in fact they both loved us: the
Father enough to send His Son and the Son enough to obey His Father.
The satisfaction-doctrine is not saying that God has
anger-management issues to vent His wrath violently upon His Son. Isaiah 53:10, “Yet it pleased the LORD to crush Him…” speaking of Christ, not that
His Father is sadistic and cruel and wrathful but because sating His wrath upon
His Son meant sparing any one of us who believe from experiencing that wrath
ourselves. And that pleased the LORD because He loves.
So with these challenges an interesting question comes up: “Does
God need the death of Jesus in order to love us?”
Opponents of the satisfaction-doctrine seem to say that
anyone who holds that doctrine would answer yes, God does need the death of
Jesus to love us. When in fact, this is not what I believe as a believer in God’s
wrath being satisfied, neither is this what the Bible actually teaches.
God loved the world prior to the cross and initiated the
cross not so that He could love us at
all but so that He could have peace with us, fellowship with us and grant us
eternal life through His Son. God did not need the death of Christ to love us,
since His love sent Christ to die in the first place. And that is not what the
satisfaction of His wrath means.
What it does mean is that Jesus took the wrath in punishment
due sinners, and any sinner who repents can escape His wrath while any sinner
who does not repent cannot escape His wrath.
2.
Proof from Scripture
So it’s all well and good to defend a teaching of Scripture, but it must be actually
taught in Scripture. And this is
where some of the biggest complaints about this doctrine come in. As I said, I
once scratched my brain about where in the Bible this teaching resides. And
there are many who claim that neither the New Testament nor the Old Testament
ever say that God’s wrath was satisfied at the cross.
In the literal sense, those who make that claim are
correct. The Bible never once, either in the New or the Old Testaments, ever
says explicitly word-for-word “God’s
wrath was satisfied at the cross”. Such an organization of words are
nowhere to be found in the Bible.
However, as we’ve seen with previous doctrines, there is
large and collective implication that this is the correct teaching of
Scripture. This may not be an explicit truth, but it is an implicit one
nonetheless.
We shall see THREE proofs from Scripture that God’s wrath
was satisfied in Jesus’ death on the cross. Tonight we’re going to pick up a
few words for our vocabularies, so bear with me. These are straight biblical
terms, so we should learn them. The first proof is:
A. The
Cup of Indignation
What does Indignation mean? Indignation simply means anger,
wrath or resentment. Specifically, though, indignation means anger provoked by
what is perceived as unfair treatment.
The Bible does use the word indignation, for example in Revelation
14:9-10 “Then a third angel followed
them, saying with a loud voice, ‘If anyone worships the beast and his image,
and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also
drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into
the cup of His indignation.”
So there you have the word indignation. You also have an
important bit of imagery concerning the book of Revelation, this concept of the
wrath of God contained in a cup, the cup of indignation. Revelation compares
the wrath of God to wine which has just fermented over so much time to the
point of it being powerful, ready to be poured out.
Another reference in Revelation to the cup, Revelation 16:19, “Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the
nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup
of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath.”
Even in the Old Testament there’s a reference to this cup
of wrath. Psalm 75:8 says “For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup,
and the wine is red; it is fully mixed, and He pours it out; surely its dregs
shall all the wicked of the earth drain and drink down.” A cup reserved for
the wicked.
You see that the Bible bears this image of a cup of wrath.
There’s another cup mentioned in the New Testament, the cup of the Lord’s
supper representing the covenant in His blood; a cup of wrath pointing to
judgment and a cup of the covenant pointing to fellowship. With this in mind,
turn to Luke 22:42. At the threshold
of intense suffering leading up to the cross, Jesus said “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless
not My will, but Yours, be done”.
Now what is the identity of this cup presented to Christ at
the outset of His sufferings. Can we suggest that this is none other than the
cup of indignation? A cup representing suffering, yes? A cup representing Jesus
taking the wrath of God in our place? Perhaps.
I found this quote online: “The Bible makes plain that the
cross was not simply an act of injustice on the part of men. It was not simply
an example of what awaits men if they do not repent. But the cross was
substitutionary suffering. Jesus Christ suffered in the place of the people
given to Him of His Father. And He suffered what they deserved. It was God's
Son in our flesh, standing in the place of God's elect out of the earth,
standing in the place of what they deserved as sinners who had broken His law.
The cup that the Father presented to His Son was filled with the lava of God's
holy wrath against our sins, the measure of suffering owed to us who have
sinned against the God of heaven. And to receive that cup meant for Christ that
He must assume our place before God's justice, and answer in His own body upon
the cross by enduring the burning and holy vengeance of the wrath of God owed
against our sins.”
There’s another reference in Mark 10 about Jesus telling James and John that they will drink
from the cup that He drinks and be baptized with the baptism that He is
baptized with, which many take to also mean suffering. While James and John did
not absorb the wrath of God as Jesus did, I think this might be a solid reference
to Jesus taking the wrath of God Himself, which definitely included suffering,
the same suffering that James and John would themselves experience though not
directly as a result of God’s wrath.
B. Reconciliation
I think this is probably a little clearer. Look at Romans 5:10-11.
Hey! It’s in my favorite Christmas song! “Hark the herald
angels sing: Glory to the newborn King! Peace on Earth and mercy mild, God and
sinner reconciled.”
Add this to your vocabulary. Reconciliation means “to settle or resolve, to restore to
friendship or harmony, to make peace between two opposing parties.”
Now why would the apostle dream of using the word
reconciliation unless there was some kind of resentment, some anger between two
opposing parties: here, God and the sinner? What did reconciliation settle or
resolve? The problem between God and sinner. What was the problem between God
and sinner? The sin of the sinner and the wrath of God which aimed to punish
that sin.
Romans 5:1, “Therefore, since we have been justified
through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ…”
We now have the peace of God and peace with God through
Jesus Christ and what is peaceful cannot contain any wrath. Therefore,
reconciliation points to the absorption of God’s wrath at the cross.
I think that reconciliation is an implicit proof that God’s
wrath was satisfied at the death of Jesus, so that there would be no more wrath
or anger or resentment toward the believer who came to God through Jesus.
C. Propitiation
The third word we want to add to our Christian vocabulary
is the word propitiation. This is an
immensely important word.
I remember when I was younger, a friend and his dad were
giving me a ride home when the word propitiation came up in our conversing about
the Bible. And I remember saying that I didn’t know what it meant. My friend’s
dad goes “What translation are you reading? It’s a Bible-word. You should know
it.”
And you know what? He was right. We should know what the
word propitiation means. Turns out, it is one of the strongest supports for the
doctrine of God’s wrath being satisfied.
Let’s examine propitiation in our third and final point:
3.
What is propitiation?
So first off, let’s ask: where is the word propitiation
used in Scripture? Well it is used in the Bible only a few times. There are
four usages of the English word propitiation in most English New Testaments.
Let’s look at them.
Someone read I John
2:2. Another I John 4:10.
Someone else read Romans 3:25. And a
volunteer for Hebrews 2:17.
You can see that the word propitiation is always in
reference to something about Jesus, about the sacrifice He made by His blood.
So secondly, what does it mean exactly? Propitiation (or
sometimes expiation) means to appease, to regain trust, to conciliate (which is
to make compatible or reconcile). Propitiation is the act of appeasing.
For example, a very, very simple example: let’s say that
someone is angry with me because I snubbed them on an invite to my party. In
order to regain their favor, I sacrifice some of my hard earned cash to buy
them a kitten. Now that’s propitiation, very simply, a sacrificial gift that
led to a regaining of favor and a removal of anger.
Originally, the word propitiation was a Greek religious
term. It meant to satisfy or appease a deity, earning divine favor and avoiding
divine judgment. You might imagine how this word fit into the Greek culture and
religious structure.
Recall that the Greeks had a pantheon of deities. And what
would you do if, while worshiping one god, you managed to get on the bad side
of another god. What would you do if you spent too much time with Ares and not
enough time with Zeus? Well, Zeus might get angry with you, at least in
fictional Greek superstition. After all, many of the Greek deities, Zeus among
them, were known to have a temper.
So what do you do about a god who’s mad at you? Well the
Greeks had this word hilasterion. Hilasterion, or propitiation, was a
gift-sacrifice that was meant to appease or satisfy the anger of a god.
In a book titled “the Propitiation of Zeus” by Joseph
William Hewitt, I found this quote: “In the instances of such sacrifice to
Zeus, we must observe closely the character of the evil to be averted… But what
sacrifices shall be considered propitiatory? Primarily, those which we know were offered to avert harm from the
fields and crops… Secondly, sacrifices
evidently offered to avert any other ill. Thirdly,
the large majority of the cases of human sacrifice. Fourthly, some sacrifices of a [purifying] character… No one not
ceremoniously pure may hope to appease the anger of a god, while the presence
of ceremonial impurity is itself likely to arouse divine wrath.”
This is the cultural and historical basis for the
definition of this word propitiation. And notice that all the key elements are
present in the propitiation of Christ Jesus. His death was the propitiatory sacrifice, a sacrifice to avert harm to us, a
sacrifice that was in a sense a human sacrifice since Jesus was not only fully
God but also fully Man, and His sacrifice
led to our purification for those who believe.
Could the Bible have used a better word than hilasterion, propitiation? A better
question: if God did not mean us to believe that His wrath was satisfied in the
sacrifice of Jesus Christ, then why would He use the word propitiation, which
contains the meaning of appeasing the wrath of gods? No, the Bible uses the
word propitiation with purpose and intent.
Jesus Christ is the hilasmos,
He Himself is our propitiation, bridging the gap between a holy and wrathful
God and our sinful selves.
J.I. Packer, writer of the book “Knowing God”, once said: “In
paganism, man propitiates his gods, and religion becomes a form of
commercialism and, indeed, of bribery. In Christianity, however, God
propitiates His wrath by His own action. He set forth Jesus Christ… to be the
propitiation of our sins.”
You see then the beauty and complexity of the cross? God
loves, yes, but in order for His love not to be mere sentimentality, He must
also hate. He loves good and hates evil. He must if He is to be good and if His
love is to mean anything at all.
But what happens if the people He loves are sinners and are
found to be evil. His wrath must be against them. His justice must condemn
them. Unless that wrath is appeased and that justice is satisfied, either in
acting out upon us or upon a substitution in our place. And that substitution
was Christ, at once satisfying both God’s wrath and justice, in that the
judgment came and the punishment was dealt upon a Him.
John Murray, a Calvinist theologian, writes: “The doctrine
of the propitiation is precisely this that God loved the objects of His wrath
so much that He gave His own Son to the end that He by His blood should make
provision for the removal of this wrath…”
Is there no greater, more profound picture in all of
history than the cross? That this garish, violent, voluntary torture that
Christ underwent encompasses both the love and the wrath of God. Herein, both
the greatest and deepest love as well as the strongest and most holy wrath are
met. Herein, the unstoppable force and the immovable object are met. Herein,
Love and Wrath collide and the result is the satisfaction of that wrath and the
demonstration of love.
In looking at the cross, we need never doubt that this
propitiation of the Son of God satisfied the holy wrath of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment