http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=199
The Origin, Nature, and Destiny of the Soul [Part IV]
[
EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this five-part series appeared in
February. Part II appeard in the
March issue. Part III appeared in
May
issue. Part IV follows below and continues, without introductory
comments, where the first article ended. Part V appeared in the
July issue.]
THE NATURE OF MAN’S SIN AGAINST GOD
Of all the living beings that dwell on planet Earth, one solitary
creature was made “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:26-27). Mankind was
not created in the physical image of God, of course, because God, as a
Spirit Being, has no physical image (John 4:24; Luke 24:39; Matthew
16:17). Rather, mankind was fashioned in the spiritual, rational,
emotional, and volitional image of God (Ephesians 4:24; John 5:39-40;
7:17; Joshua 24:15; Isaiah 7:15). Humans are superior to all other
creatures on Earth. No other living being has been given the faculties,
capacities, potential, capabilities, or worth that God instilled in each
man and woman. Indeed, humankind is the peak, the pinnacle, the apex of
God’s creation. In its lofty position as the zenith of God’s creative
genius, mankind was endowed with certain responsibilities. Men and women
were to be the stewards of the entire Earth (Genesis 1:28). They were
to glorify God in their daily existence (Isaiah 43:7). And, they were to
consider it their “whole duty” to serve the Creator faithfully
throughout their brief sojourn on this planet (Ecclesiastes 12:13).
Unfortunately, however, as the first man and woman, Adam and Eve used
their volitional powers—and the free moral agency based on those
powers—to rebel against their Maker. Finite man made some horribly evil
choices, and thereafter found himself in the spiritual state designated
biblically as “sin.” The Old Testament not only pictures in vivid
fashion the entrance of sin into the world through Adam and Eve (Genesis
3), but also alludes to the ubiquity of sin throughout the human race
when it says: “There is no man that sinneth not” (1 Kings 8:46).
Throughout its thirty-nine books, the Old Covenant discusses over and
over sin’s presence amidst humanity, as well as its destructive
consequences. The great prophet Isaiah reminded God’s people:
Behold, Jehovah’s hand is not shortened that it cannot save; neither
his ear heavy that it cannot hear: but your iniquities have separated
between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, so
that he will not hear (Isaiah 59:1-2).
The New Testament is no less clear in its assessment. The apostle John
wrote: “Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is
lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). Thus, sin is defined as the act of
transgressing God’s law. In fact, Paul observed that “where there is no
law, neither is there transgression” (Romans 4:15). Had there been no
law, there would have been no sin. But God
had instituted divine
law. And mankind freely chose to transgress that law. Paul reaffirmed
the Old Testament concept of the universality of sin when he stated that
“all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
As a result, mankind’s predicament became serious indeed. Ezekiel
lamented: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (18:20a). Once again,
the New Testament writers reaffirmed such a concept. Paul wrote:
“Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death
through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned”
(Romans 5:12). He then added that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans
6:23). Years later, James would write: “But each man is tempted, when he
is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath
conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth
forth death” (James 1:15-16). As a result of mankind’s sin, God placed
the curse of death on the human race. While all men and women must die
physically as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin, each person dies
spiritually
for his or her own sins. Each person is responsible for himself,
spiritually speaking. The theological position which states that we
inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin is utterly false. We do not inherit the
guilt; we inherit the
consequences. In Ezekiel 18:20, the prophet went on to say:
The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the
father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous
shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
The reality of sin is all around us, and its effects permeate every
aspect of our lives. Disease and death were introduced into this world
as a direct consequence of man’s sin (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12). Many
features of the Earth’s surface that allow for such tragedies as
earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, violent thunderstorms, etc., can be
traced directly to the Great Flood of Noah’s day (which came as the
result of man’s sin; Genesis 6:5ff.). The communication problems that
man experiences, due to the multiplicity of human languages, are
traceable to ambitious rebellion on the part of our ancestors (Genesis
11:1-9). Man generally is without the peace of mind for which his heart
longs (consider the number of psychiatrists in the Yellow Pages!).
Isaiah opined: “They have made them crooked paths; whosoever goeth
therein doth not know peace” (59:8; cf. 57:21). By sinning, man created a
yawning chasm between himself and God (Isaiah 59:2). In his book,
Created in God’s Image, Anthony Hoekema addressed this chasm when he wrote:
Sin is always related to God and his will. Many people consider what Christians call sin
mere imperfection—the kind of imperfection that is a normal aspect of
human nature. “Nobody’s perfect,” “everybody makes mistakes,” “you’re
only human,” and similar statements express this kind of thinking. Over
against this we must insist that, according to Scripture, sin is always a
transgression of the law of God.... Sin is therefore fundamentally
opposition to God, rebellion against God, which roots in hatred to
God.... [T]hough fallen man still bears the image of God, he now
functions wrongly as an image-bearer of God. This, in fact, makes sin
all the more heinous. Sin is a perverse way of using God-given and
God-reflecting powers (1986, pp. 169,171, emp. in orig.).
The well-known British writer, C.S. Lewis, expressed this very fact in a
most unforgettable manner via a personal letter to one of his friends
when he wrote:
[I]ndeed the only way in which I can make real to myself what theology
teaches about the heinousness of sin is to remember that every sin is
the distortion of an energy breathed into us.... We poison the wine as
He decants it into us; murder a melody He would play with us as the
instrument. We caricature the self-portrait He would paint. Hence all
sin, whatever else it is, is sacrilege (1966, pp. 71-72).
Unless remedied, this rebellion, this sacrilege, will result in man’s
being unable to escape what the Son of God Himself called the “judgment
of hell” (Matthew 23:33)—the end result of which is eternal separation
from God throughout all eternity (Revelation 21:8; 22:18-19).
The key phrase in the above discussion, of course, is
unless remedied.
The question then becomes: Has Heaven provided such a remedy?
Thankfully, the answer is “yes.” One thing is certain, however. God had
no
obligation to provide a means of salvation for the ungrateful
creature that so haughtily turned away from Him, His law, and His
beneficence. The Scriptures make this apparent when they discuss the
fact that angels sinned (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6), and yet “not to angels
doth he give help, but he giveth help to the seed of Abraham” (Hebrews
2:16). The rebellious creatures that once inhabited the heavenly portals
were not provided a redemptive plan. But man was! Little wonder, then,
that the psalmist was moved to ask: “What is
man, that thou art mindful of
him?” (8:4, emp. added).
Why would God go to such great lengths for mankind, when His mercy was
not even extended to the angels that once surrounded His throne?
Whatever answers may be proffered, there can be little doubt that the
Creator’s efforts on behalf of sinful man are the direct result of pure
love. As a God of love (1 John 4:8), He acted out of a genuine concern,
not for His own desires, but rather for those of His creation. And let
us be forthright in acknowledging that Jehovah’s love for mankind was
completely
undeserved. The Scriptures make it clear that God
decided to offer salvation—our “way home”—even though we were ungodly,
sinners, and enemies (note the specific use of those terms in Romans
5:6-10). The apostle John rejoiced in the fact that: “Herein is love,
not that we loved God, but that He loved us” (1 John 4:10). God’s love
is universal, and thus not discriminatory in any fashion (John 3:16). He
would have all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4)—
if they would be (John 5:40)—for He is not willing that
any
should perish (2 Peter 3:9). And, further, Deity’s love is unquenchable
(read Romans 8:35-39 and be thrilled!). Only man’s wanton rejection of
God’s love can put him beyond the practical appropriation of Heaven’s
offer of mercy and grace.
Did God understand that man would rebel, and stand in eventual need of
salvation from the perilous state of his own sinful condition? The
Scriptures make it clear that He did. Inspiration speaks of a divine
plan set in place even “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians
1:4; 1 Peter 1:20). After the initial fall of man, humankind dredged
itself deeper and deeper into wickedness. When approximately a century
of preaching by the righteous Noah failed to bring mankind back to God,
Jehovah sent a global flood to purge the Earth (Genesis 6-8). From the
faithful Noah, several generations later, the renowned Abraham
descended, and, through him, the Hebrew nation. From that nation, the
Messiah—God-incarnate—one day would come.
Some four centuries following Abraham, the Lord, through His servant
Moses, gave to the Hebrews the written revelation that came to be known
as the Law of Moses. Basically, this law-system had three purposes.
First, its intent was to define sin and sharpen Israel’s awareness of
it. To use Paul’s expression in the New Testament, the Law made “sin
exceeding sinful” (Romans 7:7,13). Second, the law was designed to show
man that he could not save himself via his own effort, or as a result of
his own merit. The Law demanded perfect obedience, and since no mere
man could keep it perfectly, each stood condemned (Galatians 3:10-11).
Thus, the Law underscored the need for a
Savior—Someone Who could
do for us what we were unable to do for ourselves. Third, in harmony
with that need, the Old Testament pointed the way toward the coming of
the Messiah. He was to be Immanuel—“God with us” (Matthew 1:23). Jehovah
left no stone unturned in preparing the world for the coming of the One
Who was to save mankind.
One of God’s attributes, as expressed within Scripture, is that He is an absolutely
holy
Being (cf. Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8). As such, He simply cannot
ignore the fact of sin. The prophet Habakkuk wrote: “Your eyes are too
pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong” (1:13). Yet, another of
God’s attributes is that He is absolutely
just. Righteousness
and justice are the very foundation of His throne (Psalm 89:14). The
irresistible truth arising from the fact that God is both holy and just
is
that sin must be punished! If God were a cold, vengeful
Creator (as some infidels wrongly assert), He simply could have banished
mankind from His divine presence forever, and that would have been the
end of the matter. But the truth is, He is not that kind of God! Our
Creator is loving (1 John 4:8), and “rich in mercy” (Ephesians 2:4).
When justice is meted out, we
receive what we deserve. When mercy is extended, we
do not receive what we deserve. When grace is bestowed, we
receive what we do not deserve.
Thus, the problem became: How could a loving, merciful God pardon a
wickedly rebellious humanity? Paul addressed this very matter in Romans
3. How could God be just, and yet a justifier of sinful man? The answer:
He would find someone to stand in for us—someone to receive
His retribution, and to bear
our
punishment. That “someone” would be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He
would become a substitutionary sacrifice, and personally would pay the
price for human salvation. Paul wrote: “Him who knew no sin he made to
be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in
him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). In one of the most moving tributes ever
written to the Son of God, Isaiah summarized the situation as follows:
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did
esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded
for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the
chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are
healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to
his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.... He
bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors
(53:4-6,12).
Paul reminded the first-century Christians in Rome:
Scarcely for a righteous man will one die: for peradventure for the
good man some one would even dare to die. But God commendeth his own
love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us
(Romans 5:7-8).
Jehovah’s intent was to extend grace and mercy freely—on the basis of
the redemptive life and death of His Son (Romans 3:24ff.). Though part
of the Godhead, Christ took upon Himself the form of a man. He came to
Earth as a human being (John 1:1-4,14; Philippians 2:5-11; 1 Timothy
3:16), and thus shared our full nature and life-experience. He even was
tempted in all points exactly as we are, yet He never yielded to that
temptation and sinned (Hebrew 4:15).
There was no happy solution to the justice/mercy dilemma. There was no
way by which God could remain just (justice demands that the wages of
sin be paid), and yet save His Son from death. Christ was abandoned to
the cross so that mercy could be extended to sinners who stood condemned
(Galatians 3:10). God could not save sinners by fiat—upon the ground of
mere authority alone—without violating His own attribute of divine
justice. Paul discussed God’s response to this problem in Romans
3:24-26:
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus; whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in
his blood...for the showing of his righteousness...that he might
himself be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.
Man’s salvation was no arbitrary arrangement. God did not decide merely
to consider man a sinner, and then determine to save him upon a
principle of mercy. Sin placed man in a state of antagonism toward God.
Sinners are condemned because they have violated God’s law, and because
God’s justice cannot permit Him to ignore sin. Sin could be forgiven
only as a result of the vicarious death of God’s Son. Because sinners
are redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, and not because of their own
righteousness, they are sanctified by the mercy and grace of God. Our
sins were borne by Jesus on the cross. Since Christ was tested, tempted,
and tried (Isaiah 28:16), and yet found perfect (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1
Peter 2:22), He alone could satisfy Heaven’s requirement for justice. He
alone could serve as the “propitiation” (i.e., an atoning sacrifice)
for our sins. Just as the lamb without blemish that was used in Old
Testament sacrifices could be the (temporary) propitiation for the
Israelites’ sins, so the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29) could be the
(permanent) propitiation for mankind’s sins. In the death of the Lamb of
God, divine justice was satisfied; in the gift of Christ, Heaven’s
mercy and grace were extended. When humans became the recipients of
heaven’s grace, the unfathomable happened. God—our Justifiable
Accuser—became our Vindicator. He extended to us His wonderful love, as
expressed by His mercy and grace. He paid our debt so that we, like
undeserving Barabbas (Matthew 27:26), might be set free. In this
fashion, God could be just and, at the same time, Justifier of all who
believe in and obey His Son. By refusing to extend mercy to Jesus as He
hung on the cross, God was able to extend mercy to mankind—
if mankind was willing to submit in obedience to His commands.
THE NECESSITY AND PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT
But what if God does not exist? Or what if He does, but mankind
is unwilling to submit to Him?
What then? First, of course, if there is no Creator, if everything
ultimately springs from natural causes and this life is all there is,
what would it matter
how man acts? If he is merely the last in a
long chain of evolutionary accidents, why should his conduct be of any
concern at all? The late, eminent evolutionist of Harvard University,
George Gaylord Simpson, considered this point and concluded:
Discovery that the universe apart from man or before his coming lacks
and lacked any purpose or plan has the inevitable corollary that the
workings of the universe cannot provide any automatic, universal,
eternal, or absolute ethical criteria of right and wrong (1951, p. 180).
Matter—in and of itself—is impotent to evolve any sense of moral
consciousness. If there is no purpose in the Universe, as Simpson and
others have asserted, then there is no purpose to morality or ethics.
But the concept of a purposeless morality, or a purposeless ethic, is
irrational. Unbelief therefore must contend, and, in fact, does contend,
that there is no ultimate standard of moral/ethical truth, and that, at
best, morality and ethics are relative and situational. [Morality is
the character of being in accord with the principles or standards of
right conduct. Ethics generally is viewed as the system or code by which
attitudes and actions are determined to be either right or wrong.] That
being the case, who could ever suggest (correctly) that someone else’s
conduct was “wrong,” or that a man “ought” or “ought not” to do thus and
so? The simple fact of the matter is that infidelity cannot explain the
origin of morality and ethics. If there is no God, man exists in an
environment where “anything goes.” Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky,
in
The Brothers Karamazov (1880), had one of his characters
(Ivan) say that in the absence of God, everything is allowed. French
existential philosopher Jean Paul Sartre later wrote:
Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in
consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either
within or outside himself.... Nor, on the other hand, if God does not
exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize
our behavior (1961, p. 485).
Sartre contended that
whatever one chooses to do is right, and
that value is attached to the choice itself so that “we can never choose
evil” (1966, p. 279). Thus, it is impossible to formulate a system of
ethics by which one objectively can differentiate “right” from “wrong.”
Agnostic British philosopher Bertrand Russell admitted as much when he
wrote in his
Autobiography:
We feel that the man who brings widespread happiness at the expense of
misery to himself is a better man than the man who brings unhappiness to
others and happiness to himself. I do not know of any rational ground
for this view, or, perhaps, for the somewhat more rational view that
whatever the majority desires (called utilitarian hedonism) is
preferable to what the minority desires. These are truly ethical
problems but I do not know of any way in which they can be solved except
by politics or war. All that I can find to say on this subject is that an
ethical opinion can only be defended by an ethical axiom, but, if the
axiom is not accepted, there is no way of reaching a rational conclusion (1969, 3:29, emp. added).
If there is no objective ethical axiom—no moral right or wrong—the
concept of violating any kind of “law” becomes ludicrous, and punishment
therefore would be futile. If no law or standard has been violated,
with what justification may punishment then be enacted? Yet the concepts
of moral right or wrong, and ethical obligation, are experienced by all
men to a greater or lesser degree. Even though Simpson argued that “man
is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not
have him in mind,” he was forced to admit that
[G]ood and evil, right and wrong, concepts irrelevant in nature except from the human viewpoint, become real and pressing features of the whole cosmos as viewed morally because morals arise only in man (1951, p. 179, emp. added).
Some have objected, of course, and suggested that there are serious
differences in various cultures regarding what is perceived as right and
wrong. Charles Baylis, in an article on “Conscience” in
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
mentioned this objection and called attention to such differences as
those between conscientious objectors to war versus volunteers, and
cannibals versus vegetarians (1967, 1/2:190). This misses the point,
however. C.S. Lewis observed that although there may be differences
between moralities, those differences have not “amounted to anything
like a total difference” (1952, p. 19). They clearly would not, as
Baylis suggested, “differ radically.” As Lewis went on to remark, a
totally different morality would consist of something like (to choose
just two examples) a country where people were admired for running away
from battle, or a person who felt proud for double-crossing those who
had been kindest to him. Yet as Thomas C. Mayberry has noted: “There is
broad agreement that lying, promise breaking, killing, and so on, are
generally wrong” (1970, 154:113). Atheistic philosopher Kai Nielsen even
admitted that to inquire, “Is murder evil?,” is to ask a self-answering
question (1973, p. 16). Why is this the case? In his book,
Does God Exist?, A.E. Taylor wrote:
But it is an undeniable fact that men do not merely love and procreate,
they also hold that there is a difference between right and wrong;
there are things which they ought to do and other things which they ought not
to do. Different groups of men, living under different conditions and
in different ages, may disagree widely on the question whether a certain
thing belongs to the first or the second of these classes. They may
draw the line between right and wrong in a different place, but at least
they all agree that there is such a line to be drawn (1945, p. 83).
Paul wrote in Romans 2:14-15:
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things
contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto
themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts meanwhile
accusing or else excusing one another.
Although the Gentiles (unlike their Jewish counterparts) had no
written law, they nevertheless had a law—a
moral
law—and they felt an obligation to live up to that law. Their
conscience testified in regard to certain moral obligations in agreement
with the law—urging them to do right and discouraging them from doing
wrong.
But why was this the case? How is it that “morals arise only in man”
and thus become “real and pressing features” of the Cosmos? Why did the
Gentiles feel an obligation to uphold a certain ethical law? Who, or
what, was the source of that law “written in their hearts”? The answer
to such questions, of course, can be found only in the acknowledgment
that the Creator of the Cosmos and the Author of that ethical law are
one and the same—God!
Because of Who He is (Sovereign Creator), and because of what He has
done (redeemed sinful man), He has the right to establish the
moral/ethical laws that men are to follow, and to establish the
punishment for any violation of those laws that might occur. I repeat:
If there was no law, then there could be no sin—since where there is no
objective standard there can be no right or wrong. If there is no sin,
then there is no moral responsibility incumbent upon man. But if no
moral responsibility is required of us, why, then, do we find courts and
prisons spanning the globe?
Punishment for infractions of this moral/ethical code, however, can
take any one of three forms—preventative, remedial, or retributive.
Preventative punishment is a penalty exacted in order to deter others
from acting in a similar unlawful fashion (e.g., soldiers who refused to
obey a legitimate order from a superior officer being court-martialed).
Remedial punishment is intended as a penalty to evoke improvement in
the person(s) being punished (e.g., an employer requiring an employee to
remain after his shift is over because of being a slacker on the job).
Retributive punishment is a penalty meted out because, quite simply, it
is deserved (e.g., a student being suspended from school for verbally
abusing a teacher).
All three types of punishment are biblical in nature. Preventative
punishment was evident in the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira after they
lied about their donation to the church (Acts 5; note verse 11: “And
great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all that heard these
things”). Remedial punishment can be observed in passages like Hebrews
12:6-7, where the writer told the saints:
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he
receiveth. It is for chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as
with sons; for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not?
Retributive punishment is evident in God’s instructions to Noah after
the Flood: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed,
for in the image of God made he man.” Granted, at times the various
types of punishment may (and often do) overlap. Forcing disobedient
soldiers to endure a court-martial, and then sending them to prison, not
only will have a beneficial effect on others (preventative punishment),
but hopefully will deter those who broke the law from ever doing so
again (remedial punishment).
In employing retributive punishment, however, God will “pay back” the
wicked. Paul, in referring to God’s words in Leviticus 19:18 and
Deuteronomy 32:35, reminded the first-century Christians who were
undergoing severe persecution: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ saith
the Lord” (Romans 12:19). In writing his second epistle to the
Christians at Thessalonica, Paul assured them that God was just, and
that
It is a righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that
afflict you, and to you that are afflicted rest with us, at the
revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in
flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to
them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus: who shall suffer
punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from
the glory of his might (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9).
When the writer of the book of Hebrews cried out, “It is a fearful
thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31), he was
attempting to warn us against having to endure the retributive
punishment of God. The famous British preacher, Charles H. Spurgeon,
once said:
When men talk of a little hell, it is because they think they have only
a little sin, and they believe in a little Savior. But when you get a
great sense of sin, you want a great Savior, and feel that if you do not
have him, you will fall into a great destruction, and suffer a great
punishment at the hands of the great God (as quoted in Carter, 1988, p.
36).
Those who suggest that no “good God” ever could condemn people’s souls
to eternal punishment obviously have failed to grasp the “great sense of
sin” of which Spurgeon spoke. Nor do they understand the horrible price
Heaven paid to offer sanctification, justification, and redemption to
sinful mankind. As Paul stated the matter in Romans 5:10:
But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his
blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. For if,
while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of
his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
As Jesus hung on the cross dying for sins that He did not commit—in
order to pay a debt that He did not owe, and a debt that we could not
pay—He raised His voice and implored: “My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). One writer described Christ’s words as
“among the most shocking in Scripture” (Peterson, 1995, p. 214). Why?
The word “forsaken” is defined as to “abandon, desert,” and is used here
of “being forsaken by God” (Bauer, et al., 1979, p. 215). Imagine the
Son of God—abandoned, deserted, and forsaken
by His own Father in order to pay the price for
our sins!
Christ suffered the wrath of God so that mankind would not have to
endure that wrath. In the Garden of Gethsemane, as Peter drew his sword
to defend his Lord, Jesus turned to him and asked: “The cup which the
Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11). What was this
“cup”? And why did it bring such anguish to Christ’s soul? The Old
Testament provides the answer. In Jeremiah 25:15ff., the prophet wrote:
For thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, unto me: “Take this cup of
the wine of wrath at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send
thee, to drink it. And they shall drink, and reel to and fro, and be
mad, because of the sword that I will send among them.”
When the evil nations to whom Jeremiah spoke drank of the “cup of God’s
wrath,” they were destroyed—never to rise again—because God’s anger at
their evil ways was so intense (vss. 26-27). The psalmist referred to
the same cup of wrath when he wrote:
But God is the judge: He putteth down one, and lifteth up another. For
in the hand of Jehovah there is a cup, and the wine foameth; it is full
of mixture, and he poureth out of the same. Surely the dregs thereof,
all the wicked of the earth shall drain them, and drink them (75:7-9).
Peterson observed in regard to these two passages:
This is the cup from which our holy Savior recoiled. A cup for “all the
wicked of the earth” (Ps. 75:8), this cup, full of the wine of God’s
wrath (Jer. 25:15), should never have touched Jesus’ sinless hands. That
is why he was “overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death” (Matt.
26:38) and prayed three times for the Father to take it away. On the
cross the son of God drank to the dregs the cup of God’s wrath for
sinners like you and me.... And he did so willingly! (1995, p. 216).
At the cross, we catch a glimpse of the enormity of our sin and its
offense to God. Christ—forsaken by His Father—suffered the retributive
punishment that should have been ours. We deserved it; He did not. At
the cross, we stare deeply into the vast chasm of human sin, and within
it we see nothing but that which is vile and dark. But it is also at the
cross where we stare deeply into the mysterious, unfathomable,
incomprehensible love of God, and within it see a holy and righteous
Sovereign Who, while abandoning and deserting His own Son, stubbornly
refused to abandon and desert us. As Peterson went on to say:
Viewed in the light of the Father’s everlasting love for him, Jesus’
cry of abandonment in Matthew 27:46 is almost impossible to understand. The eternal relations between Father and Son were temporarily interrupted! The preceding verse hints at this when it tells us that darkness covered the land of Israel from noon until 3 p.m.; a profound judgment was taking place (1995, p. 214, emp. added).
Elizabeth Browning set these eternal truths into poignant poetic form
when she wrote: Yea, once Immanuel’s orphaned cry his universe hath
shaken.
It went up single, echoless, “My God, I am forsaken!”
It went up from the Holy’s lips amid His lost creation,
That, of the lost, no son should use those words of desolation.
Once again, I say: Those who claim not to understand how God could send
sinful men into eternal punishment simply do not comprehend either the
abominable, repulsive nature of man’s rebellious crime against God or
the inestimable, unspeakable price Heaven paid to redeem rebellious man
from Satan’s clutches. Guy N. Woods wrote:
Those who would palliate the punishment or seek to shorten its duration
by pointing to the love, long-suffering, and patience of God, ignore
other attributes of deity, and disregard the fact that his goodness is
evidenced just as much in his characteristics of justice and truth as in
his love and long-suffering. As a matter of fact, love and
long-suffering are valid only when the principles of justice and truth
are also operative in the divine government. To promise punishment and
then to unilaterally cancel it is impossible to One who is not only the
God of love but also the God of truth! He will not do so because he
cannot do so, and maintain his character. God cannot impeach his own
veracity, since “it is impossible for God to lie.” (Hebrews 6:18.) Were
he to cease to be just and truthful, he would cease to be good. The
effort to emphasize some of the attributes of the great Jehovah to the
neglect of others, or to array some against others, is to compromise the
divine character (1985, 127[9]:278).
I must confess that in my most private and contemplative moments, I
have reflected on the meaning and seriousness of the moving passage
found in Hebrews 10:28-29.
A man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God,
and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified
an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
And in those same private, contemplative moments, I confess that I also
have wondered (viewing this matter from what is, admittedly, a purely
human standpoint—as the proud, earthly father of two precious,
irreplaceable, sons): If I gave “only” one of
my sons’ lives (God
had “only” one!) in order to save a wicked wretch who was my enemy in
the first place—and that enemy then not only spurned the unique,
exquisite, priceless gift of my son’s blood, but mocked the supreme
sacrifice that both my son and I had gone to such great lengths to make
on his behalf—what kind of retributive punishment would
I devise for such a one?
[to be continued]
REFERENCES
Bauer, W., W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F. Danker (1979),
A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Baylis, Charles (1967), “Conscience,”
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Macmillan), 1/2:189-191.
Carter, Tom (1988),
Spurgeon at His Best (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Hoekema, Anthony (1986),
Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Lewis, C.S. (1952),
Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan).
Lewis, C.S. (1966),
Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer (London: Fontana Books).
Mayberry, Thomas C. (1970), “God and Moral Authority,”
The Monist, January.
Nielsen, Kai (1973),
Ethics Without God (London: Pemberton).
Peterson, Robert A. (1995),
Hell on Trial—the Case for Eternal Punishment (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R).
Russell, Bertrand (1969),
Autobiography (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Sartre, Jean Paul, (1961), “Existentialism and Humanism,”
French Philosophers from Descartes to Sartre, ed. Leonard M. Marsak (New York: Meridian).
Sartre, Jean Paul (1966), “Existentialism,” Reprinted in
A Casebook on Existentialism, ed. William V. Spanos (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell).
Simpson, George Gaylord (1951),
The Meaning of Evolution (New York: Mentor).
Taylor, A.E. (1945),
Does God Exist? (London: Macmillan).
Woods, Guy N. (1985), “Do the Scriptures Teach that the Wicked are to Experience Endless Suffering in Hell?,”
Gospel Advocate, 127[9]:278, May 2.
