some people dont relise the atonment fulfilled the shadows of the old couvernt ,,which included propishisation ,and expiation ,,,both actions included the death of the inocent anamial spotless and sinless ,,one was the blood offering wich satisfied justas and apeased wrath ,,the other a sinbarer ,,which bore sin as sin was transfered to the lanb or to jesus ,,and was drivern out side the gate and the camp to die out of sight ,,left to suffer .that was the same reason why the cross was out side the camp it exactly shadowed the old covernt forsaken of all and left to die ,,,,,,,,

i also believe that the burnt offering was was a shadow of christ decent in to hades ,,i know many dont believe that but i read calvin believed this so im in good company with that one

it is writtern cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree ,,,,,,where is it writtern;;;;;; in the old testament law ,,it was a judisial punishment of the law of mosess for a cursed sinner ,,,christ fullfilled that as well ,,,it was comanded in the old covenrt to take the body of the tree and bury it in a tomb with a larg stone ,,,,,,,,i wonder who fullfilled that as well jesus did


he even fullfilled the tithe and grain offering to god ;;;he was the first fruits ,,,,,,he was everthing to god holy and exceptable and well pleasing a plesent aroma ,,,he was a burnt incence

he bore every curses that was giverrn under the law to the sinner ,,that we might recieve every spirtual blessings in the heavenly places


jesus fullfilled the whole law aS thE righteous one ,and as the damded and forsken sinners USS


lets us not take away the role that our creator jesus played in the renewal of the creation through the new covernt ,,,its amasing


blessings

Don't get too excited Gary. In my heart of hearts I agree with you. We are just having a discussion. I don't think anyone here is trying to lessen or cheapen what Jesus did for us. I certainly appreciate your passion for this subject and you make excellent points.

_________________
Todd

Amen, Gary.

TMK,

I will simply say that the cup of which Jesus drank included everything he endured, including the wrath of God. Jesus, as our sacrifice that appeased the wrath of God (propitiation), has paid the debt that we needed to pay.

Now, to tell the disciples that they would drink of that cup is not saying that they will have to pay that penalty that Jesus did, but that they would also endure similar things--the persecution, rejection, suffering, etc.

I apologize for jumping into the discussion at this late stage but as I read some of the posts a question came to mind for those who hold the position that God did not forsake Jesus as He was on the cross; my question is this;

What is the punishment for sin?

In Christ,

Ron

_________________
Ron Halverson

Solomon101
While I look up to these two theologians that you have quoted from I must admit that I need to disagree. As a side note why don't you try to put your beliefs in your own words rather than to quote someone else. You say that you could write these out for yourself. It would be more interesting to read why you believe, how you formed your own theology regarding the forsaking of Jesus. Surely you believe because you have carefully considered the Scriptures and concluded that Jesus was forsaken. Tell me that you have not simply accepted the status quo because it is the most popular. I accepted the status quo until it was revealed to me otherwise. I was not searching for a different answer. I realize that you probably think that I am a little "out there" because I suggested that God gave me to understand why Jesus cried out from the cross as He did. You would have to have been there to understand that part of it + you would need to know me to even begin to consider that I might have actually received a revelation. You will know them by their fruit. I say all of this not in a prideful way but humbly + hesitantly to explain the origin of my belief. Yes, I have tested His voice as we ought to + have found nothing that contradicts His Word, nor in any way takes away from what Jesus did or accomplished on the cross for us. Actually, I find it quite refreshing to know that Jesus was not forsaken by the Father.
I can see that it would be a great word study to look at "curse" + see how it applies. But I have not done so as of yet.
RC Sproul especially embodies the traditional view. "God turned His back on Jesus". "God is too holy to even look at iniquity". I equate "hiding His face" with "turning His back." Perhaps you or others don't. What's the difference then? Surely we don't agree with Sproul that God is too holy to look at sin. He didn't have a problem looking at mine or yours. There is nothing hidden from His sight + that would have to include sin. Even by turning His back, as if He could turn away + not see something, nothing is hidden from Him.
I agree wholeheartedly with TMK. We need to be careful not to add to the testimony of Scripture by teaching or suggesting something that is not there no matter how small it might seem. He obviously has a very high view of Scripture, as do I.

_________________
Bruce

"What about the verse in question and all the verses where God says he is going to utterly forsake us because of our sin".
Here I go sticking my neck on the chopping block for all to have a hack. I believe that this whole teaching, the Father turning away and not being able to bear to look stems from trying to explain away the "cry of the cross." Jesus said it therefore it must be according to the "plain reading." Thankfully most of what is written in Scripture is of that very nature or few would have enough comprehension to be saved, not neglecting the power of the Holy Spirit working in man's heart to bring one to repentance. We don't need to know "all of these extra Biblical facts" to understand all of Scripture. But you must admit that understanding the historical + cultural background has given us a greater understanding of Scripture than if we had no background information. The man from Swaziland , without divine intervention, would not conclude what I am suggesting. Admitted. But this is one of those times that having knowledge of these things enhances our own understanding.
"A plain reading of the Scriptures is so important." We can understand enough of His Word with a plain reading but knowing the times in which they were written will surely enhance our knowledge. Must we though? Surely not I would agree.
You don't have to know all of these extra Biblical facts but they are evidence that there might be something more than the plain reading. If these were Jesus own words rather than Him quoting Psalm 22 than why did He say, "My God" when He always called Him Father. Not once did He use that manner of addressing Him while ministering + teaching.
For me its just another piece of evidence that must be considered.

_________________
Bruce

I think we all ought to remember that the promise to forsake is God's promise to forsake those that forsake Him (2 Chron 15:2). Jesus never once forsook the Father. I'm sure that someone would suggest that Jesus suffered that in our place as part of what we deserve. I get that as an argument. I simply no longer accept that Jesus was forsaken because He quoted the words from Psalm 22. It does not mean that He had to experience being forsaken to have said what He said (quoted). He knew the Father too well for that - to think for a second that the Father would abandon Him in the time of His greatest need. If He wanted simply to convey an emotional abandonment He could have stated it or cried out in His own words so that we would know He was not quoting David's cry. How about, "Where are You Father?"

_________________
Bruce

God did not turn away his face because he cannot see his son being physically punished for our sins. God the father could not have fellowship with Jesus and forsake that fellowship that existed from eternity because my sins were put on Jesus. God is light and he cannot have fellowship with anyone who has sins. Because that fellowship was broken Jesus referred to God his father as "GOD" not as father. He always called him father so far.

Also if the fellowship was never broken then what was the cup that Jesus was crying to be taken from him in Gethsemane? Jesus was clearly not crying for the fear of Physical punishment for my sins, there are many martyrs who were Crucified singing praises to God. This makes Jesus weaker than those martyrs. He was crying because the Cup had my sins that will separate his fellowship with Father. The fellowship that was never broken from eternity.

I also believe that it is essential for a Christian to know that the fellowship was broken when Jesus hung on the Cross. It is not a matter of unimportance. Because we need to know the magnitude of Jesus's sacrifice for us. It was not just Physical sacrifice that he did for us, but spiritual as well. If it was only Physical pain and agony on the Cross then Apostle Peter who was crucified upside down went through a better sacrifice.

_________________
Sreeram

_________________
Sreeram

God Cannot Look Upon Sin (Habakkuk 1:13)?
This idea that God cannot look upon sin or see evil probably comes from Habakkuk 1:13. In one translation, for example, it says this:
Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong (NIV).
Ironically, the text then goes on to say that God does in fact tolerate wickedness and evil. Habakkuk is a book where the prophet asks numerous questions to God such as this one. The prophet Habakkuk looks around him at what is going on in the world and has trouble reconciling it with what He knows about God, and so He asks a whole series of challenging questions about God’s behavior and actions. Habakkuk 1:13 is one of those questions… the first one actually.
Habakkuk does not believe that God cannot actually see evil. No, Habakkuk knows that God sees everything that goes on in the world. From the very beginning, God saw that Adam and had sinned, and He saw when Cain killed His brother Abel, and He saw when the people on the earth became so wicked that a flood was going to destroy them all. We could go on and on throughout the Bible to see that God both knows the evil that is going on in the world, and He sees it. God sees every bit of evil in this world.
So to say that God cannot look upon sin is not accurate biblically, and is not what Habakkuk 1:13 teaches. Instead, it seems that what Habakkuk is saying is that God, by not seeming to do anything about evil, appears to be looking upon evil with approval. But we know that God does look upon evil in approval; He disapproves it. So how then is it that the treacherous seem to be in God’s favor, and the wicked seem to win at everything? This is what Habakkuk is asking.
And if we look around in the world, we often have the same question. Why do the wicked prosper? Why do the treacherous thrive? (Jeremiah 12:1). Job asked a similar question as well in Job 21:7.