The Father was not angry at the Son at the cross. And neither do the Gospels emphasize Jesus’ pain during his ordeal although he surely suffered physically. What they do emphasize is Jesus’ cry of dereliction (“My God, My God, why have you forsaken me”).
The notion that the Father (or God) is angry with the Son misunderstands Trinitarian orthodoxy, Reformed theology, and the clear emphasis of Scripture. Here’s why.
First, the Bible teaches the unity of Father and Son in God. God cannot be angry with himself.
The Trinity rules all other doctrines since theology begins with the first principle, Theos—God. John Webster explains, “The ruler and judge over all other Christian doctrines is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.” Yet Webster does not mean that the Trinity is the single doctrine that explains everything else.
Webster writes further, “The doctrine of the Trinity is not one doctrine among others; it is foundational and pervasive.” The Trinity forms something of an umbrella that opens up over the rest of Christian theology: “To expound any Christian doctrine is to expound with varying degrees of directness the doctrine of the Trinity; to expound the doctrine of the Trinity in its full scope is to expound the entirety of Christian dogmatics” (2016: 159).
The basic thesis of trinitarian theology is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a unity—a triunity. Hence, it makes little sense to say that one person is angry with another person. Yet Jesus does cry, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” Lest we let our theology make the Bible fiction, we need to state what happened here.
As is often the case, John Calvin provides insightful commentary. He first asserts that the Father cannot be angry with the Son:
Yet it is not to be understood that the Father was ever angry toward him. For how could he be angry toward his beloved Son, “in whom he was well pleased”? Or how could he appease the Father by his intercession, if the Father regarded him as an enemy? (First Catechism, quoted in Horton 2018)
Calvin rightly affirms that the Father was never angry with the Son. He loved the Son.
So what happens at the cross then? Calvin explains:
But it is in this sense that he is said to have borne the weight of divine severity, since he was ‘stricken and afflicted’ by God’s hand, and experienced all the signs of a wrathful and avenging God, so as to be compelled to cry out in deep anguish: ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?'” (Ibid.)
Calvin draws on the classical Christian tradition to distinguish between what happened to the Son of God according to his being and what happened to him according to signs. The mutual bond of love never retreated from the being of God in which the Father and Son experience blessed triunity.
Rather, the signs, namely, the darkness in the sky and the experience of human suffering highlight the substitutionary work of Christ. Out of love, the Son experienced the signs of wrath that are truly due us for our sin.
And that sign preeminently is death, that is, the original curse (“in the day you eat of the tree, you will surely die”). He becomes the curse for us, receiving the judicial punishment of death on our behalf. Death is the curse, the expression of God’s wrath. So we affirm this fully. “Yet,” as Calvin writes, “we do not suggest God was ever inimical or angry toward him” (Inst. 2.16.11).
Second, to say God or the Father is angry with the Son misunderstands Trinitarian orthodoxy.
At the heart of Trinitarian theology is God. And the Lord God is one God. So the three persons in the one God act and feel together. They are one and not made up of a thousand atoms or properties. God is light. All light. He is unchanging and perfectly ordered in his emotional life. In short, God is simple.
So to say something like “The Father burns with anger towards the Son, striking him at the cross with his anger” effectively teaches a separation in God. Such statements unintentionally sunder God in two creating a di-theistic God.
Michael Horton writes, “The subject of the incarnation is God the Son who assumed our humanity.” God becomes human. And so God cannot be angry with himself!
He continues, “A properly ecumenical doctrine of the Trinity therefore will not allow any image of an angry God who punishes a mere human being for other human beings. As truly as the Father sent the Son out of love, the Son embraces his mission in love for the Father and for his bride” (2018: 2:157). Jesus never becomes God’s enemy. He wills to die as God incarnate to effect salvation.
God loves the Son. And God loves us. Despite the reputation of Calvinist self-loathing, Calvin himself affirms: “But because the Lord wills not to lose what is in us, out of his own kindness he still finds something to love” (Inst. 2.16.3). The cross-work of Jesus flows from the love of self (in God) and the love of us (his creation).
The Son undergoes the sign of the curse, namely, death which is the effect of God’s wrath. But to build a case that the Father was angry with the Son goes beyond Scripture and the consensus of orthodox Christianity.
Third, the Gospels do not emphasize the pain of Jesus’ ordeal but his substitutionary death on behalf of humanity—taking the wrath of God, the curse, and death.
Some Roman Catholic spirituality focuses on the suffering of Christ as a sort self-mortification. It provides a way to imitate Christ. Sometimes Protestants mimic this mode of mortification in their preaching of the Gospel.
We preach that Jesus suffered excruciating pain for us. He was tortured, mutilated, hung on the cross. And God did this to him.
And yet the four Gospel books themselves do not make this case.
Gospel scholar Francis Watson explains, “Jesus’ physical pain is not emphasized, though the reader can only assume that it must have been extreme.” He notes that the possible exception is Jesus’ words “I thirst” in John. Still, even in this case, “Physical suffering does not seem to be the issue here.”
Then he makes the insightful observation: “Far more significant than the physical and psychological torment that Jesus experiences along with other victims of crucifixion is the darkness that occasions his cry of Godforsakenness” (2016: 155; see Matthew 27:45–50).
That cry of dereliction appears in Matthew 27 when Jesus cries, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me.” For Watson, Christ’s cry reveals the meaning of the noon darkness to the reader. He explains, “Together, the darkness and the cry reveal the truth of the contemptuous claim that, though he saved others, he could not save himself. Jesus’ ability to save others is dependent on his inability to save himself from physical and spiritual destruction” (2016: 156).
The Gospels portray Jesus’ suffering primarily through the cry of dereliction (without ignoring that Jesus certainly did suffer physically). Pointedly, to focus on Jesus’ physical pain not only mismatches the emphasis in the Gospel books but also in the apostolic preaching.
God predestined Christ to die by crucifixion (Acts 2:23; 4:28). Yet the immediate cause of Jesus’ pain is lawless men: “you crucified and killed [him] by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23). So our preaching or thinking should accord with the twofold reality that God predestines all, yet lawless men wickedly killed Christ.
What belongs to God both providentially and immediately is the noon darkness that symbolically portrays God’s just wrath against sin in Jesus Christ (Matt 27:45). Christ becomes the curse for us when he hung on the tree (Gal 3:13). That curse means death since hanging on the tree was the consequence of sin—a death sentence (Deut 21:22–23). Further, Jesus hung on the tree to evoke the memory of the garden tree. Here, Adam and Eve ate from the tree that led to the direct consequence of death, God’s curse.
This rich theology of atonement is what the Gospels emphasize in Jesus’ substitutionary death in which he took our punishment. He swallowed up death as if he were a sinner on our behalf. He bore our transgressions. And died on the tree for us and for our salvation.
To focus on the tortures of the cross may be of historic interest, and Jesus certainly suffered here. Yet the four Gospel books do not portray Jesus’ pain in these acts; they portray his pain in his cry: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me.”
And this is what we must emphasize in our preaching. By focusing on the nails, the pain in the stripes, and what lawless men did to Christ we can make an error. We could fall into the trap of preaching a Gospel of moral explemplarism (Jesus suffered so much for us!). Yes, he did suffer for us and this does show his great love for us and provide an example for us (1 Pet 2:21). But God justifies us because Christ received the just penalty for our sin.
Following Jesus’ good example flows from the cross and is an effect of it. It is sanctification. Not justification.
In our preaching, we should not fall into the trap of preaching mortification as justification. And this seems to be the effect of preaching the tortures of crucifixion. Besides that, the fourfold Gospels don’t portray Jesus’ pain in this torture. Neither ought we do to so. We should focus on the cry on the cross. That moment of Godforsakenness where Jesus swallows up death as the sin-bearer for us and for our salvation.
Two suggestions
To more closely align with Trinitarian theology, Reformed theology, and the biblical idiom, consider these two suggestions.
First, avoid making the case that the Father (or God) is angry with the Son. He loves the Son. And he loves us. That is why he died for us. Love, not hate, is why God incarnated to save us. Instead say, “the Father and Son mutually love each other, and out of this great love Christ bears our sin and swallows up death by becoming the curse for us.”
Second, avoid preaching the tortures of the cross when preaching from the Gospel books because it misunderstands the theological intent of the Gospels, does not match the apostolical preaching, and potentially confuses sanctification with justification. Do preach Jesus’ guileless suffering as the example for our sanctification or way of living the Christian life.
In short, look to orthodox trinitarianism, learn from Calvin, and attend to the Bible’s meaning.
Note (Jan 3, 2019): For clarity’s sake, I believe that God is angry at sin and sinners, not the Son. Because of God’s love for us, God incarnated and took our place as our substitute and so underwent the judgment that we deserved (John 3:16; Eph 1:4). I plan to write on this later, but it was not the focus of this article.
Discover more from Wyatt Graham
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Graham, I love your explanation of this aspect of Christian theology and the Reformed perspective. It seems to me however that coupling the term “wrath” with God’s judgement of our sin is unhelpful. Wrath in the OT seems connected with God’s anger and the inflicting of a violent and painful death, mostly on the enemies of the Jewish people yet often on those Jews who failed to honour the Covenant. How can we not relate this activity of God with his attitude towards Jesus on the cross if we continue to use the term “wrath?
We have inherited the death”consequence” of the sin of Adam. You can read “wrath” into the Genesis text but I see only God exacting consequence for our disobedience. We received what we were told we would receive, no wrath necessary. Humanity has been dying ever since Adam and, I’m sure, unaccompanied by God’s wrath with every human death. Certainly Jesus took on the consequences of our disobedience and the death we deserved and He transformed that death consequence into an offer of eternal life. I believe this was established without the need for wrath at all, but by the action of Father, Son and Spirit, in Love, to save us from ourselves ,,, no wrath necessary, either in emotion or in any sign. The only sign necessary was the “sign of Jonah” I believe that involving the term “wrath” in the Atonement is a distraction from the essence of what you have so eloquently explained.
Hi Charlie,
In my view, God’s wrath due sin results in his judicial punishment of it, that is, death. Jesus became the curse of God, receiving the wrath of God, specifically, death. God is angry with sin and sinners. And so Christ’s bearing of sin means that he suffers the consequences of God’s anger with sin and sinners. He is reckoned to be lawless although he never sinned.
I think the Bible too clearly shows God’s anger and wrath against sin to say that it plays no role in the cross. I realize that this language is not used in the Gospels. But you have to somehow explain why Jesus had to die. Paul does this and says we have been saved from wrath: “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!” (Rom 5:9)
Thank you, Wyatt. Very helpful distinctions and how we can apply those distinctions to our preaching. “Preach the cry and the cross.” Will do.
Thanks, Dan!
Hey, Wyatt. Great article. I love it!
One item at the end. You write:
‘First, avoid making the case that the Father (or God) is angry with the Son. He loves the Son. And he loves us. That is why he died for us. Love, not hate, is why God incarnated to save us. Instead say, “the Father and Son mutually love each other, and out of this great love Christ bears our sin and swallows up death by becoming the curse for us.”’
It seems to me that it is appropriate to speak about the wrath of God poured out on Christ at the cross, so long as we understand that God is not angry at the Son, although he is angry at our sin. When we say that Jesus experiences the wrath of God, we don’t mean that God is displeased with the Son in any way. We mean that the Son suffers the wrath of God as our substitute. To say it another way, all the wrath that was due to sinners was poured out on the Son with whom God was well-pleased.
So substitution is a key concept for maintaining trinitarian orthodoxy in our understanding of the atonement. Neglecting substitution implies that God’s wrath is due to something blameworthy in the Son, which of course is not the case. Jesus suffers under the wrath of God that was aroused by OUR sin not by his–for he had no sin and only ever pleased the Father.
Anyway, great article!
Thanks, Denny! I agree. I was thinking about writing a follow up article called, “If not at the Son, then who or what was God angry with?”
I’d answer in ways similar to what you noted above.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
W
Denny,
Yep, I am glad I saw your reply before writing mine, well said.
Jesus, Himself is the wrath-bearing sacrifice for our sins and not only ours but for the whole world. 1 John 2:2
“Jesus’ ability to save others is dependent on his inability to save himself from physical and spiritual destruction” Francis Watson.
What a remarkable statement! This (and the whole written) made me worship our God for His humble (yet effective) “method” of salvation for sinners like us.
“the Father and Son mutually love each other, and out of this great love Christ bears our sin and swallows up death by becoming the curse for us.”
Thank you for this incredible article, Wyatt.
Thanks for reading, Denis!
Have a great day.
I don’t think Jesus was being punished by the Father, but rather, Jesus carried our sins to the cross like one carries a burden. 1Pe. 2:24: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.”
If indeed Jesus was punished, then we certainly could understand the Father forsaking Him. But if He was not punished, then the Father did not abandon Jesus. He was not angry with Him.
The animals sacrificed in the OT were not punished, they were offered as atonement. They were killed, not tortured. Jesus was tortured at the hands of men, not by the decree of God.
So why would we think the Father turned His face away? The problem is we should read more than the first verse of Psalm 22, like verse 24: “For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.” The Father never did hide His face.
I think that Jesus was quoting Psalm 22:1 to refer to the entire Psalm. It’s heavily messianic, containing many fulfilled prophecies about Jesus. This means that even in the excruciating pain of torture He was completely aware of His purpose and mission.
My opinion is that by quoting Psalm 22:1, He was pointing to these prophecies being fulfilled right before their very eyes, not that the Father had forsaken Him.
Hello Wyatt,
I am struggling to understand how this article does not undercut penal substitution, Christ’s propitiation, and the meaning of imputation.
Can you help me make sense of the fact that God poured His own personal wrath out on His own Son on the cross, yet was not wrathful toward His Son? If you say the Father was angry at sin, well, the Bible tells us Jesus was made sin (2 Cor. 5:21). Therefore, by imputation, God was angry at His Son (yet loved Him at the same time).
I much prefer Thabiti’s approach – and he cites Calvin too: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/what-does-it-mean-for-the-father-to-forsake-the-son-part-3/
If God is not truly angry at the Son by the imputation of our sin to Him, does that mean that God is not truly pleased with us because of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us?
I totally affirm with you that the Trinity relationship remained intact on the cross – and that the Father never loved the Son more than when He was on the cross – Amen! But the Father was also never more angry at the Son while He was on the cross because our sin was imputed to Him. Why can’t it be (both/and) not (either/or).
The elect found themselves in the same situation in Ephesians 2. The elect are loved of God with an everlasting love from before the foundation of the world, yet before conversion we were children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. God loved us and hated us, both at the same time.
I believe there’s mystery here. God hates sinners and God loves sinners all at the same time. On the cross, the Father hated the Son by imputation (because on that cross He counted Him as the worst sinner Who had ever lived), and He loved the Son at the same time – He was never more pleased with the Son than when He was on that cross. If hate sounds like strong language, just remember the Bible says Jesus was forsaken by God. And think of all the Biblical language about how much God hates sin – and remember Jesus was made sin. Jesus was counted what God hates more than anything. Is imputation real? Then the anger must be real too.
Please show me how my thinking is wrong on this. And I realize I may be differing with Calvin on this. At this point, I disagree with Calvin if he is saying the Father was not angry with the Son. That notion seems to totally undercut penal substitution to me – even though he and you may not be intending to do so.
Thanks for any help you can offer.
Joseph Randall
Brother Wyatt,
I’ve done some more study on this. This long portion from Herman Witsius is helpful. I think I agree with the Formula of Concord on this, which Witsius cites favorably below:
“Since there
is an exchange of persons between Christ and believers, and since the
guilt of our iniquities was laid upon him, the Father was offended and
angry with him. Not that he was ever moved with any passion against
him, which is repugnant in general to the perfection of the Divine
nature, under whatever consideration: neither that he was by any means
offended at him, much less abhorred him, so far as he was considered
in himself, for so he was entirely free from all sin; but as
considered in relation to us, seeing he was our surety, carrying our
sins in his own Body. Thus, if by an offended and an angry mind, you
understand a holy will to punish, Christ the Lord felt and bore the
displeasure of God, and the weight of his wrath, in the punishment of
our sins, which were translated to him. For it pleased the Father to
bruise him, having laid the iniquities of us all upon him.”
He also speaks of Calvin calling Jesus damned:
Calvin, and some of the ancients, say that he was damned:
“Some of the Romish doctors have, with great acrimony of style,
aggravated what was said by Calvin in the tenth section of his
Catechism, concerning the satisfactory pains and punishment of Christ,
viz. that he was in a state of damnation. But it is answered by our
Divines, that Tertullian used the same phrase, Book III. against
Marcion, chap. xi. “The nativity will not be more shameful than death,
nor infamy than the cross, nor damnation than the flesh.” Cyprian on
the passion of Christ, “He was damned, that he might deliver the
damned.” And Gregory the great, Moral. Book III. chap. xi. “He who is
equal to the Father in point of divinity, came, on our account, to
scourging in respect of the flesh; which scourging he would not have
received, had he not in redemption taken upon him the form of a damned
man.”
See the whole discussion here:
VI. Yet during the extremity of his sufferings, he was refreshed with
some comfortable sense of favour
Unless this perhaps, whether during all the time of his extreme
sufferings, Christ’s soul was refreshed with no sense of comforting
grace, which indeed I dare not say. He truly bore our sins, when in
the garden he began to be troubled, and to be sore amazed, and to be
sorrowful even unto death, and yet at that very time, he had an angel
sent from heaven to strengthen him. While he exposed his body to the
smiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; while he
hid not his face from shame and spitting, he found that the Lord was
his helper: therefore he set his face like a flint, because he knew
that he should not be ashamed: he being near who would justify him,
Isa. 50:6, 7, 8. Neither does it seem probable, that even on the
cross, the mind of Christ was always so intensely fixed on the Divine
wrath against our sins, that faith did not now and then represent to
him, what an acceptable sacrifice he would offer to his Father, and
what a glorious reward he would obtain to himself and to his elect,
after the greatest torments indeed, but of a very short duration.
Truly that thought could not but greatly comfort his soul, so deeply
plunged in sorrow. And I judge that Paul intended this, when,
exhorting the Hebrews to run with patience the race set before them,
and with that faith which believes that God is the rewarder of them
who diligently seek him, he sets the example of the Lord before their
eyes: Looking, says he, unto Jesus, the author and finisher of faith,
who for the joy set before him, endured the cross, Heb. 12:2.; that
is, by the view and the expectation of the joy promised to him, he was
remarkably encouraged to endure the cross, yea, and in enduring it.
And which is more, in that very moment wherein Jesus complained that
he was forsaken, he recalled to memory that God was his אל, his strong
God, his אלהים, his God in covenant: certain, that by the strength of
his God, he should be supported, certain that all the promises of the
covenant should be yea, and amen, to him and to his people.
VII. Whether Christ was abominable to God on account of the sins which
he had taken upon him
Let us now come to the other head of inquiry, whether it be proper to
say, That Christ on account of the pollution of our sins, was also
polluted and odious, and placed in such a state, that God abhorred
him. Where again it is without controversy, that Christ, because of
his most perfect holiness, was always most acceptable to God the
Father, and most beloved by him. And it is so far from being true that
by the voluntary susception of our sins, the love of God to him was
any how diminished, that on the contrary, he never pleased the Father
more, than when he showed himself obedient unto death, even the death
of the cross. For this is that excellent, that incomparable, and
almost incredible obedience, which the Father recompensed with a
suitable reward of ineffable glory. Nay, it is also confessed on both
sides, that Christ, not because of the susception of our sins, which
was an holy action, and most acceptable to God, but because of the
sins themselves which he took upon him, and because of the persons of
sinners whom he sustained, was represented not only under the emblem
of a lamb, inasmuch as it is a stupid kind of creature, and ready to
wander; but also of a lascivious, a wanton, and a rank-smelling goat,
Lev. 16:7. yea, likewise of a cursed serpent, John 3:14. and in that
respect, was execrable and accursed, even to God. For this is what
Paul expressly asserts, Gal. 3:13. on which place Calvin thus
comments, “He does not say that Christ was cursed, but a curse, which
is more; for it signifies that the curse due to all, terminated in
him. If this seem hard to any, let him also be ashamed of the cross of
Christ, in the confession of which we glory!”
VIII. Calvin, and some of the ancients, say that he was damned
Some of the Romish doctors have, with great acrimony of style,
aggravated what was said by Calvin in the tenth section of his
Catechism, concerning the satisfactory pains and punishment of Christ,
viz. that he was in a state of damnation. But it is answered by our
Divines, that Tertullian used the same phrase, Book III. against
Marcion, chap. xi. “The nativity will not be more shameful than death,
nor infamy than the cross, nor damnation than the flesh.” Cyprian on
the passion of Christ, “He was damned, that he might deliver the
damned.” And Gregory the great, Moral. Book III. chap. xi. “He who is
equal to the Father in point of divinity, came, on our account, to
scourging in respect of the flesh; which scourging he would not have
received, had he not in redemption taken upon him the form of a damned
man.”
IX. It is better to confine ourselves to scripture phrases, than by
using others to multiply controversies
Since therefore the apostle expressed this truth in the most emphatic
words, I know not why a desire should seize any of ours, either of
substituting or of adding others to them, or of using them oftener
perhaps, than even Paul’s. For what cogent reason is there, why we
should say that Christ was odious and abominable to the Father, when
we may adhere to the dictates of the Holy Spirit, who pronounces that
he was an execration of God? But I would wish also to know what there
is in these words of human invention, except that they are of human
invention, for the sake of which others are so much offended. If we
love the thing itself, is there more of emphasis or of weight, in the
names filthy, odious, abominable, than in the name cursed, or
execrable? Why do we strive about words, which may be safely omitted,
if found to give offence; but being also innocently said, ought not to
be wrested to another sense.
X. The form of concord
The conciliatory letter I lately mentioned, seems to have found out a
convenient method of agreement, in the following words. “Since there
is an exchange of persons between Christ and believers, and since the
guilt of our iniquities was laid upon him, the Father was offended and
angry with him. Not that he was ever moved with any passion against
him, which is repugnant in general to the perfection of the Divine
nature, under whatever consideration: neither that he was by any means
offended at him, much less abhorred him, so far as he was considered
in himself, for so he was entirely free from all sin; but as
considered in relation to us, seeing he was our surety, carrying our
sins in his own Body. Thus, if by an offended and an angry mind, you
understand a holy will to punish, Christ the Lord felt and bore the
displeasure of God, and the weight of his wrath, in the punishment of
our sins, which were translated to him. For it pleased the Father to
bruise him, having laid the iniquities of us all upon him.” If these
things are granted on both sides, as is just, what controversy can
remain?
XI. Whether God the Father ever disowned his Son
There is more difficulty in the abdication of the Son of God, as they
call it, continuing even to his resurrection from the dead. For no
where in sacred scripture do I find this phrase, or any other
equivalent to it. Concerning it, certainly, it is not inquired,
whether the eternal Son of God ceased to be the Son of God, while he
carried our sins. Let him be anathema who teaches this. But neither is
it inquired, whether or not the Father then assumed the character of a
judge, by whom the Mediator Christ, sustaining the person of
rebellious servants, should, as such, be most severely treated. For
this also is an incontested truth Perhaps that may be inquired,
whether God, when he assumed the character of a Judge toward Christ,
so laid aside the character of a Father, that he considered and
punished him only as guilty, setting aside the consideration that that
guilty person was his own most innocent Son. In which controversy, the
negative part, is in my judgment, better than the affirmative.
XII. Christ in the utmost anguish, acknowledged God as a Father
For as Christ in the utmost extremity of anguish, acknowledged the
Judge to be his Father, so also God the Judge owned him to be his Son.
For these mutually follow one another. Now Christ, with an
ingemination, and a singular affection, cried, Abba, Father: and
hanging on the cross, he commended his spirit into the Father’s hands.
And it was of paternal affection, as I also lately hinted, that he
sent an angel to comfort him, (which certainly will not be the lot of
reprobates) that he gave him occasion to say, when he was most poor
and needy, Indeed I am such, but the Lord thinketh upon me, Psal.
40:18.; and finally, that he received the departing soul into his own
habitation.
Herman Witsius, Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions on the
Controversies Agitated in Britain, trans. Thomas Bell (Glasgow: W.
Lang, 1807), 42–48.
Brother Wyatt,
One more I found helpful – Tim Keller on Calvin is helpful too: https://derekzrishmawy.com/2017/07/31/calvin-on-he-descended-into-hell-guest-post-by-tim-keller/
At the end of the day, I am much more comfortable saying that the Father felt anger toward the Son (because our sins were imputed to Him), and the Father never loved the Son more than when He was on that cross: It was the apex of His perfect obedience – and all this – all at the same time. AND there is much mystery involved! Hallelujah! What a Savior!!!
Thank you for this article Wyatt – I appreciate the concern to maintain the simplicity of the Trinity at the cross and the eternal pleasure and unity between Father and Son, but I cannot see how a distinction between “wrath” as punitive act and “wrath” as emotion/anger can be maintained. Certainly the word ὀργὴ contains both sentiments as it is generally found in the New Testament. Am I missing something?
Thanks for the response and clarification Graham.
Denny Burke offers the traditional viewpoint that it is necessary that God ”poured out His wrath on the Son” This seems inseparable from the PSA Atonement theory but your article mostly avoids that view. You quoted Romans 5 in your response to me and it seems to confirm something I’ve done some research on. As Rich says above, “the animals in the OT were not punished”. Looking at the ‘mechanics’ of sacrifice laid out in Leviticus 16, sacrifices were offered so the community would “AVOID” God’s wrath. As Paul says in Romans 5, we were “SAVED from wrath” but he doesn’t say God’s wrath was poured out on the Son. The sacrificed animals tasted death so the community and individuals would not. The goat sent to the wilderness with our sin laid was simply abandoned and died. The concept has reverse echoes of the good shepherd leaving the ninety-nine to look for the lost sheep. Leviticus doesn’t state that the wrath meant for our sin was poured out on the sacrificed animal. These animals simply took on the consequences (wages) for our sin and that was death.
In the Gospels the Pharisees are reprimanded by John the Baptist for coming to be baptized and “flee from the coming wrath” It seems even they didn’t trust the effectiveness of the sacrificial system for avoiding wrath. (Luke 3:7)
If God poured out his wrath for the sins of all humanity on Jesus, and it was effective for the atonement of all humanity, why is there still a lake of wrath in Revelation? The lake remains as judgment for Satan, the beast and all who worship the beast. God’s wrath was not spent on the Son, it endures into the Final Judgment (of which we are all subject to as well (and yet we avoid this now through a life of faith in Jesus)
I cannot find any scripture that spells out the concept that God pours out His wrath on the sacrifice, either for the animals or for Jesus. Isaiah suggests that God “was pleased to crush” Him and yet Paul certainly puts the blame on us for crucifying Jesus.
Even the scriptures mentioned by Joseph Randall above don’t expressly state that God poured His wrath out on the Son. Please help me here Graham, am I missing a scriptural reference for this concept?
In your response to me you connect God’s anger with sin but one could read the curse of Adam and find no anger there. You could read God’s interrogation and curse of Cain and find no anger there and read the judgment of humanity related to Noah and find remorse and sadness, not anger. Death as a consequence for sin needs no anger.
It does seem that the later OT understanding is that wrath was God’s earthy punishment for sin. The problem with this concept of God’s punishment is that often sinners seem to enjoy a nice life and virtuous people often experience grave suffering. The concept of attributing God’s wrath as punishment for sin was challenged by Jesus in the story of the tower of Siloam (Luke 13:4) and in the whole encounter with the man born blind. Jesus constantly forgave sin without sacrifice or the “necessary” outpouring of wrath. He also taught that “the rains fall on the just and the unjust alike” counter to the idea that God exacts wrath for sin. Consequence for sin has been relegated to judgment in Eternal Life by the “one who was slain.” The “Wrath of the Lamb” is not anger but the sword of truth coming from the mouth of Jesus.
Jesus teaches that there IS wrath to come when the “King” finally settles accounts. He teaches that the “Father’s” wrath is saved for those who don’t forgive as mercifully as He does. (Matt:18 21-35)
Graham, if you can comment more on this, not just as Joseph has done by citing commentary but provide scriptural references for God’s wrath poured out on either sacrificial animals or on Jesus on the cross it would be really helpful.
Thank you for any scriptural clarifications you can provide !
Charlie B
Wyatt,
It seems to me that there are some problems with your analysis of the cross. Overall, your approach to the narrative in this article appears to focus on avoiding the conclusion that Jesus suffered under the anger of the Father even as he allegedly did suffer under the wrath of the Father. You make much of Calvin’s attempts to disregard this conclusion, but the only thing Calvin has done in his writing is to say the conclusion is wrong…he doesn’t actually do anything to explain or prove that the conclusion is wrong. That’s all fine and good if you simply want to suggest paradoxically that somehow Jesus suffered under God’s wrath without experiencing God’s anger, but it certainly will not do to suggest that such a paradox is logically consistent, particularly if you are going to claim that God’s wrath is an expression or sign of His anger. In any case, this whole issue can easily be resolved by 1) having a more Biblical view of God’s wrath and 2) recognizing that God’s wrath is not mentioned or implied anywhere in the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ suffering.
Thank you so much!!! When we read the Bible at face value, this is what we find – and Jesus shares with the disciples at length in the gospel of John right before the crucifixion how much the Father loves the Son and his prayer that we would have the love of the Son and Father in us! So much pain inflicted on us to think the Father was angry or was pleased to hurt or killed his Son. Is not Biblical. The Father grieved over the sacrifice of his Son, even though he and the Son and Holy Spirit knew this was their plan of redemption for the world – justice and mercy on the cross and the empty tomb. Satan and our sin “killed” Jesus – not His Father. And after three days, Jesus rose and sits on the right hand of the Father who loves Him and raises him up! Praise the Lord – Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
I appreciated the article and it was very thought provoking. But the duality of your argument does not make sense to me. “My God My God why have you forsaken me?” You say that God cannot be angry with Himself but then again He can forsake Himself? He did forsake the Son, because the Son became sin for us just as God poured out His wrath upon the Son. Isaiah tells us the He was smitten of God, and chastised for our peace. You say that those who believe the Father was angry with the Son don’t understand Trinitarian orthodoxy, and I believe you to be right. That being said neither do you or any theologian at any time for that matter. That shouldn’t stop us from digging deeper and learning more about the 3 in 1 God, but God is eternal and no matter how long we study Him we can never come to the end of Him, because He is eternal. It comes across as arrogant that you and Calvin understand but those who disagree don’t. We have understanding but we simply disagree. You could very well be right about God’s anger here but saying others simply just don’t understand is a false assumption. We can understand but just disagree. My point is simply this if God can forsake Himself then He can also pour wrath upon Himself because He is the trinity. Just as he forsook Himself He can be angry with the One who became sin for us and we do know that God hates sin and either way of thinking we also understand the wrath of God was satisfied in Christ.