“My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?”

Everyone in Christian evangelical circles has had this quote explained to them in the following way: “God is unable to look upon sin and hates it so much that he turned his back on Jesus. And Jesus cried out in that moment of loneliness and isolation: why have you forsaken me?”

Though that makes for good theatrics, it’s not really accurate. It’s also a great example of reading a theological position into a passage to justify what we’ve already decided it means. Jesus isn’t just saying some random phrase – he’s actually quoting Psalm 22. And throughout the majority of the New Testament, Old Testament passages that are quoted sparingly are meant to be interpreted in light of the of the whole passage, not just the snippet that, say, Paul or Luke might give you. It’s kind of like a song or hymn. Though most pop songs derive their titles from the chorus, hymns or praise and worship anthems use the first line. So, “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” is actually the first line; so is “I’m Trading my Sorrows” or “As the Deer.” Jesus was actually quoting a song title – Psalm (song) 22 to be exact. He quotes the first line (verse 1), knowing that we’ll know that he meant for us to read the whole text in light of his crucifixion.

But we don’t. We lost that little cultural clue along the way. And our accepted legal model of the atonement is happy to see God turning his head away from his object of wrath: Jesus. So, why don’t I give you the rest of the song?

My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?
      Why are you so far away when I groan for help?
 Everyone who sees me mocks me.
      They sneer and shake their heads, saying,
“Is this the one who relies on the Lord?
      Then let the Lord save him!
 If the Lord loves him so much,
      let the Lord rescue him!”

 My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs;
      an evil gang closes in on me.
      They have pierced my hands and feet.
 I can count all my bones.
      My enemies stare at me and gloat.
 They divide my garments among themselves
      and throw dice for my clothing.

 Praise the Lord, all you who fear him!
      Honor him, all you descendants of Jacob!
      Show him reverence, all you descendants of Israel!
 For he has not ignored or belittled the suffering of the needy.
      He has not turned his back on them,
      but has listened to their cries for help.

 The whole earth will acknowledge the Lord and return to him.
      All the families of the nations will bow down before him.
 Our children will also serve him.
      Future generations will hear about the wonders of the Lord.
 His righteous acts will be told to those not yet born.
      They will hear about everything he has done.

So, what’s going on here? Well, like every Psalm, this one tells a story. Psalm 22 tells of possible abandonment and affliction by enemies. It even describes some of the events surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion (another reason why Jesus chose to quote it). But in the “song,” when things seem the darkest, God rescues the afflicted. And though the Psalmist in verse one believes God is turning his back, verse 24 tells us God has not done so. That’s the point Jesus was making. God (identifying with Jesus) is on a rescue mission to save the world so that everyone will “hear about everything he has done.” If we believe that the fullness of the Trinity was reconcilling the world, they were all there with Jesus at that moment. All three were completely invested in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

We’ve asked countless times why Jesus died on the cross. Yet, we fail to read the rest of the “song” after Jesus quotes its title. Psalm 22 explains the cross as a moment when everyone can see the depths to which the Trinity will go to reconcile the world – to heal and deliver it from certain destruction. God doesn’t turn his head. He does the opposite. He dives directly into the human condition by becoming one of us. He’s not too holy to look at sin. He’s too holy to let sin hold humanity captive. And like the Father who hugs his prodigal son whose covered in pig filth, God in Jesus surrounds himself with sin so he can explode sin from the inside out.

Now, that makes more sense, doesn’t it?

Don’t Like Unlimited Atonement? Take It Up With Jesus.

I’ve always struggled with the end of Matthew 22:1-14: the Parable of the Marriage Feast. I think it’s great that when the master’s acquaintances dishonor him by refusing the invitation to the feast, the master invites anyone else who might be willing to attend so that the wedding hall could be filled with guests. To me, that’s very much a view of unlimited atonement. However, at the end of the parable, the master throws some guy out for not having on the proper wedding garment - something I had always been taught that each guest personally brings with them. I’ve heard some preachers imply that the garment represents faith or good works or divine election, depending which one of those “vices” appeals most to your theological leanings. But I came across something a while back that changed how I read the last part of this parable.

This ”wedding garment” (sometimes called a Kuftan) is an outer robe that was worn at formal functions. Everyone wore this garment, whether they owned one or not. It was a symbol of equality: once everyone had theirs on, status and prestige disappeared and all respect was paid to the bridegroom alone. But the most important thing about this wedding garment was that it was provided by the host family to everyone who attended. Wealthy families (the kind that would’ve staged this feast) had a closet of them solely for the purpose of giving them out to their guests.

Now, that should change things for you. The master in the story sees a man in the main room (not in the foyer where the garments were given out) without his wedding garment on. He says, “Friend, how did you come in here (the main hall) without your wedding garment (Kuftan)?” In other words, you were offered a Kuftan when you entered…and the only reason you wouldn’t have it on now is if you purposefully chose to reject it. And that obstinate behavior is what caused the master to throw the guest out of the party.

You see, according to the context of first century Judaism, everyone would have received a wedding garment. There was no need to earn it, nor was it given to only a select or arbitrary few. Anyone and everyone received the garment regardless of socio-economic background or cultural status. And once everyone was together wearing their robes, egalitarianism reigned in the house of the master. And that’s exactly what Jesus was trying to say. Everyone gets a robe…unless they refuse to wear it. And even then, the master in this story offered the guest a second chance to reconsider before he threw him out – but the guest did not respond.

God’s not looking to throw anyone out of the party. In fact, you really have to want to get thrown out. And in this way, the marriage feast parable is fairly explicit in teaching unlimited atonement. To read beyond or dismiss this contextual clue is irresponsible. Personally, I’m thankful it’s in there. I’ve been stubborn enough at times to resist the wedding garment only to be drawn back to the king when he entreats me to return to the Kuftan closet and put it on. In this parable, the wedding garment is not a sign of judgment. It’s availability to all guests is a sign of God’s mercy and grace to anyone and everyone who wants to attend the feast.

Jesus Come Into My Heart…

Claire Grace has been talking a lot about God lately. At age four, she seems to be able to effectively grasp what it means to have Jesus “in your heart.” She also likes to talk about how much God loves her and mommy and daddy and everybody. She usually gets a look of wonderment on her face with that last category – how could he love everybody? I’m not sure, but I do know this: dwelling on that one revelation keeps me happy for days on end.

I was fairly certain CG understood the metaphorical reference of  Jesus in her heart. After all she’s a genius, right? – just like your kid is to you. Or, at least, it seemed like she did until Beth took her to a Christmas play at a local church last year. One of the youth members was dressed up as a ”grown up” Jesus. CG turned to Beth and said, “Look mom – Jesus jumped out of our hearts and now he’s on stage!” Okay…so maybe she didn’t get the whole metaphor thing. Then I got to thinking that most people probably don’t understand the implications of that phrase either. So here it is…

The Hebrew word for heart (lev, pronounced with a long e) doesn’t necessarily mean an organ in the body. It stood for the center of a person where all emotion, will, desire, and intention originates. In essence, lev means the “life seat” of a person. The main controls that set all else in order. So when a child prays “Jesus, come into my heart,” they are actually saying, “Jesus, come and occupy the life seat of all present and future decisions, intentions, and motives.” Now, that’s a little different than tallying “professions of faith” in a church bulletin, don’t you think?

The first thing that strikes me about that idea is that is affects the entire person. From a Hebraic perspective God intended to save the whole man, not just his spirit that floats to heaven one day. That’s why the Hebrews had no real doctrine of the afterworld. They solely concentrated on this life. They understood “heart” decisions as present life decisions. Second, the level of commitment within this little phrase is far beyond what most Christians are comfortable with. Third, Paul reflects that same idea when talking about being filled with the spirit and what that means exactly. I already blogged about that here. Finally, the implications of that phrase make me realize that Christianity, though it certainly has a beginning point at conversion, is more about growing into maturity as a life quest – a slow process of regeneration and sanctification.

So, there you go. As with any Christian parent, my goal is to help CG understand the implications of what she is saying when she says, “Jesus lives in my heart.” Come to think of it, it’s my personal goal for my walk with the Lord as well…

Views of the Cross, Part II

I just finished reading George Barna’s Revolutionary Parenting. It sure made me thankful for my parents’ willingness to provide us with a Christian home. They did all the things in that book without having to read a book.  

This post is a follow up to the first one. Jonathan asked for a more definitive explanation as to why the penal-substitutionary model of atonement is not my favorite. He asked me to address the many scriptures that seem to support it. So here you are – but let me say that this is not a comprehensive critique of that view. That’s what books are for. You might want to skip this one if you’re not into tedious, painful, laborious blogs…

Also, I didn’t inculde the governmental model of atonement in my previous post.  To me, it still retains God as punisher of Jesus, conveying a duplicitious nature similar to the penal-substitution theory, but then says the punishment was merely instructive or exemplary. That’s fine, but in that scenario God still punishes Jesus and I’m not okay with that. 

As you may have figured out by now, I am not interested in “defeating” penal -substitution atonement (PSA) on scriptural grounds. People wrangle about biblical Greek to no end. I don’t believe that’s where the deciding factors lie. They are in historical context. The problem lies in our understanding of biblical justice. Biblical ideas of justice have nothing to do with punishment – they celebrate redemption, reconciliation, liberation, and deliverance. That’s the problem. The PSA theory assumes that sacrifice must include punishment and that God gains satisfaction from it.

Once again, views of the cross, if fully accurate, should begin with the heart of God. The gospels explicitly state why Jesus came: ”for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16). The motivation was not punishment, but love. Jesus tells us why he embraced the cross: “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13).

The PSA model, though it’s a fully developed model atonement, presents a narrow picture of justice based on a medieval, legalistic interpretation. The OT is pretty clear that the idea of executing justice is not to punish, but to establish healing and reconciliation. The  justice of God is closely tied to righteousness. It means to make things right or to “do right” by someone. The prophets constantly reference God’s justice as something that denotes his righteous acts of compassion. Justice is an expression of mercy, not a contradiction to it. God’s justice is seen when he liberates the oppressed and downtrodden. Check out these verses:

Isaiah 1:17 – “Learn to do good. Seek justice. Help the oppressed. Defend the cause of orphans. Fight for the rights of widows.”

Isaiah 30:18 – “Therefore the LORD will wait, that He may be gracious to you; And therefore He will be exalted, that He may have mercy on you. For the LORD is a God of justice; Blessed are all those who wait for Him.”

Jeremiah 21:12 – “Give justice each morning to the people you judge! Help those who have been robbed; rescue them from their oppressors. Otherwise, my anger will burn like an unquenchable fire because of all your sins.”

The NT carries this theme as well in regards to Jesus’s ministry and his death on the cross. There is no dichotomy between a “God of justice” in the OT and a “God of mercy” in the NT. There is no duplicity in God’s character. God has always been a compassionate God, a God of love. Jesus said if you’ve seen him, you’ve seen the Father. Plenty of NT scriptures reflect this same idea of justice as redemption and rescue.

Matt. 12:18-21 – “…And He will declare justice to the Gentiles…A bruised reed He will not break, And smoking flax He will not quench, Till He sends forth justice to victory…” Also, see Luke 4:18-19 and notice that Jesus purposefully left out “And the day of vengeance of our God” when quoting this passage from Isaiah 61.

So, contrary to the PSA theory, punishment is not what the justice of God required. God’s justice delivered/rescued humanity from its ultimate enemy: death. That’s what 1 Corinthians 15 is all about. Our limited Western perspective believes justice is only served when people are put in jail, or required to pay recompense, or put on death row. For the West, justice = punishment. However, God’s view of justice, by commending his love to us in Jesus, released us from bondage. That’s where PSA fails – it requires a transfer of penalty to someone, based on a Western understanding of legal justice, not the redemptive understanding of justice found in the OT. Requiring that transfer is not a biblical teaching but a rationalistic import from 16th century theology. NT passage can only be understood within this OT understanding of justice. Otherwise, the more important universal scope of the cross is ”lost in translation.”

As such, PSA adherents always confuse the  juridical with the sacrificial. I pulled this quote from this blog because I just couldn’t say it any better: “Sacrifice, in the Bible, is never punitive; rather, it is a divine gift which, as human offering, becomes an expression of praise and gratitude. It is also a demonstration that reconciliation is a costly matter. But justice too, in the Bible, is not essentially punitive or retributive; it is restorative. If we continue to think of the atonement in forensic terms, it is essential to see it not as a legal transaction but as the transformation of a relationship.”

So what do you do with verses like these that seem to support the PSA theory?

Romans 3:25 – “For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 – “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Galatians 3:13 – “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.”

1 John 2:2 – “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”

1 John 4:10 – “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.”

In all these verses, we must “unassume” certain things about them. Though they all say Jesus was sacrificed for or in place of humanity, none of them say the sacrifice was unto God. They also reaffirm that God, in concert with Jesus, initiated love to us through the cross. In keeping with the OT understanding of justice as redemption, they state that Christ redeemed us from the curse of sin and death through the cross. None of them say that God punished Jesus to do it. The writings of Paul do not stand on their own apart from the rest of scripture. The NT epistles should not inform our understanding of the OT and the gospels; the OT and the gospels inform all the epistles. Covenant theologians are supposed to know this. Paul, a good Jew, fully understood the OT context of justice and probably didn’t feel he needed to revisit the biblical definition of justice that was obvious to his first century listeners. Unfortunately, we’ve lost that along the way. I’m sure if he were alive today, he would make that clear for us.

If you haven’t fallen asleep by this point, hopefully this has helped a little. If not, you’re welcome to ignore it or ask any questions it may raise.