Did God Turn Away from Jesus when Jesus was on the Cross?

[BRB]

His death makes full satisfaction to the Divine Justice, for it is something greater than all the sins of all rnankind.[/INDENT]

Full [100%] satisfaction / atonement.

 

[NotWorthy]

Its relatively mild stuff c/w the aged wine. Have you ever home brewed beer / wine ?

Takes 7-14 days to get some reasonable ETOH levels. And, thats with great brewer yeast / added sugars / malt, etc.

By the way … the Apostles weren’t drunk on new wine spirits … was the H.S.

But I think there are two meanings going on here.

A) New wine back then must be different from 21st century “new wine”. Else how would the Jews think at 9:00am the Apostles were drunk on new wine. - that’s the literal context.

B) Yes, the Apostles were drunk on New Wine, the new wine that Jesus was talking about when He said it’s like pouring new wine into new wineskins. The New Wine is the Gospel Message (the New Covenant) that the Holy Spirit pours into the hearts of the Christians - this is the Spiritual Context.

 

[fhansen]

Its relatively mild stuff c/w the aged wine. Have you ever home brewed beer / wine ?

Takes 7-14 days to get some reasonable ETOH levels. And, thats with great brewer yeast / added sugars / malt, etc.

By the way … the Apostles weren’t drunk on new wine spirits … was the H.S.

Yes but aging wine doesn’t increase alcohol. In any case grape juice at 21-24% sugar will ferment into 12-14% wine.

BTW, under the category of “Arguments Against Various Silly Claims That Jesus and all True Christians Hate Wine”, I once heard a Pentecostal pastor comment that wine was unnatural because it required human intervention in order to be made and somehow that meant the Savior wouldn’t have partaken in it. But I’ve forgotten crushed chardonnay grapes in a coffee can for two weeks and come back to find wine. The conditions for fermentation and conversion of sugar to ETOH are not at all unique and adequate native yeasts abound in the environment.

 

[japhy]

Full [100%] satisfaction / atonement.

Did you bother to read anything about the Catholic teaching on atonement? The satisfaction was not a penal substitution.

 

[BRB]

Else how would the Jews think at 9:00am the Apostles were drunk on new wine. -.

You’re referring to Acts 2:15 … right ?

It says wine … not new wine. Think about it … why would the Jews of been thinking of new, poorly aged wine ?

Jews didn’t usually drink early in day. Thus Peter was making point that these H.S. filled Christians are not early AM drunkards [on old wine] … but rather intoxicated with H.S. (new wine of Christ).

 

[japhy]

You’re referring to Acts 2:15 … right ? It says wine … not new wine. Think about it … why would the Jews of been thinking of new, poorly aged wine?

No, he was referring to Acts 2:13, which says:

[RSV] But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”
[NAB] But others said, scoffing, “They have had too much new wine.”
[KJV] Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
[DR] But others mocking, said: These men are full of new wine.
[LV] alii autem inridentes dicebant quia musto pleni sunt isti
[BNV] alii autem irridentes dicebant: « Musto pleni sunt isti ».

The Greek word is γλεύκους (gleukos); Strong’s says: “Akin to glukus; sweet wine, i.e. (properly) must (fresh juice), but used of the more saccharine (and therefore highly inebriating) fermented wine – new wine.”

 

[BRB]

No, he was referring to Acts 2:13, which says:

[RSV] But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

The Greek word is γλεύκους (gleukos); Strong’s says: “Akin to glukus; sweet wine, i.e. (properly) must (fresh juice), but used of the more saccharine (and therefore highly inebriating) fermented wine – new wine.”

OK … I see the earlier reference to new wine.

This suggest several possibilities to me. Perhaps the Apostles had been telling the people that these new converts were filled with new wine (Christ) … and those mocking didn’t see the connection to Christ.

Also, as you suggest … the word used here may not imply the usual low ETOH, mildly fermented wine … but, perhaps a high sugar content wine, which would yield a potent ETOH concentration upon fermentation.

I’m sure someone has done a doctoral dissertation on this … and the full explanation may be known.

 

[japhy]

This suggest several possibilities to me. Perhaps the Apostles had been telling the people that these new converts were filled with new wine (Christ) … and those mocking didn’t see the connection to Christ.

There were no “new converts” yet, unless I’m misunderstanding you. This is immediately after the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles and they began proclaiming the gospel and many various peoples could understand them in their native tongues. Perhaps those who mocked were not capable of understanding the Apostles because they were not receptive to God; thus, they heard gibberish, whereas the others heard their native tongues. Perhaps they could understand, but thought it insanity nonetheless.

The mockers are simply ascribing the behavior of the Apostles (and possibly the other 108 people, Mary included; cf. Acts 1:12-15) to new wine.

 

[Faithx6]

If Jesus paid the full price for our sins, he would be condemned to Hell for eternity. But that’s not what happened. Penal substitution fails here. St. Thomas Aquinas’s teaching (and before him, St. Anselm) is not penal substitution, but satisfaction, atonement. Here’s a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:For the theory put forward by Anselm has been modified by the work of later theologians, and confirmed by the testimony of truth. In contrast to some of the other views already noticed, this theory is remarkably clear and symmetrical. And it is certainly more agreeable to reason than the “mouse-trap” metaphor, or the notion of purchase money paid to Satan. Anselm’s answer to the question is simply the need of satisfaction of sin. No sin, as he views the matter, can be forgiven without satisfaction. A debt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles. The suggestion that some innocent man, or angel, might possibly pay the debt incurred by sinners is rejected, on the ground that in any case this would put the sinner under obligation to his deliverer, and he would thus become the servant of a mere creature. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was by the coming of a Redeemer who is both God and man. His death makes full satisfaction to the Divine Justice, for it is something greater than all the sins of all rnankind.

Excellent point. Thank you for replying. I understand the difference between atonement and penal substitution and recognize that it is significant. However, I don’t understand how atonement precludes turning away by God from Christ while Christ was on the cross having assumed the burden of sin as part of the atoneing process necessary to satisfy the requirements of divine justice. We’re taught that sin separates us from God and we need to be reconciled to Him (hence, it is sinful to receive the Eucharist when we have committed a mortal sin and not been to confession). How was Christ not separated from God during the three hours that he bore the world’s sin for us?

 

[TJKelley]

Anyone who thinks they understand the Trinity is fooling themselves. We can get a basic understanding from scripture but not much more.
Jesus became our sin and God (the Father) cannot look upon sin. All throughout Jesus’ ministry He referred to the will and authority of the Father. Nothing He did was of or for Himself; it was all for the Father. No way would Jesus ask His Father why He had been forsaken if it wasn’t a serious matter.

 

[BRB]

Anyone who thinks they understand the Trinity is fooling themselves. .

Indeed. No way the creature can fully understand the creator.

That being said … some Christian Philosophers have given us some wonderfully inspired ideas about the Trinity and Heaven.

Peter Kreeft’s book on Heaven … has some awesome ideas he and other Philosophers have thought of.

Inspired ideas by the greatest minds … and, the Churches’ N. Creed. [developed to keeps us from heretical tangents] … are worthy of our study.

 

[japhy]

However, I don’t understand how atonement precludes turning away by God from Christ while Christ was on the cross having assumed the burden of sin as part of the atoning process necessary to satisfy the requirements of divine justice. We’re taught that sin separates us from God and we need to be reconciled to Him (hence, it is sinful to receive the Eucharist when we have committed a mortal sin and not been to confession). How was Christ not separated from God during the three hours that he bore the world’s sin for us?

Well, I think part of it has to do with what we mean by “he bore our sins”. (I’m venturing into territory that I don’t know the official Catholic stance on, so bear with me.) I think the summary of what I’m about to say is this: God never turned away from the proper sacrifice for sin, and since Jesus was the perfect sacrificial offering, there is no reason for the Father to turn away from the Son.

He didn’t become sinful or a sinner – a blemished lamb was not acceptable as a Passover sacrifice (cf. Exodus 12:5) – so we can’t mean he actually assumed our sins or our sin nature. The epistles say that he “died for our sins” (1 Cor 15:3), “died for sins once for all” (1 Peter 3:18) “gave himself for our sins to deliver us” (Gal 1:4), and is “the expiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2, 4:10). The letter to the Hebrews says Jesus “made purification for sins” (1:3) and “make expiation for the sins of the people” (2:17).

Paul writes in Romans 6:10 that Jesus “died to sin, once for all”; the phrase “to sin” is not a verb phrase but is similar to saying “he died unto sin”, that is, “to” here is a preposition.

Now, 2 Cor 5:21 is tricky, because it says “for our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin”… it sounds like Jesus became “sin”, but “sin” isn’t punished, the one who commits sin is punished. I think this is an allusion to the “scapegoat” of the Yom Kippur rituals (cf. Lev 16). But it still can’t mean Jesus became sinful, because as Hebrews 4:15 and 1 Peter 2:22 say, Jesus is like us but without sin; furthermore, Hebrews 7:27-28 shows that Jesus did not have to sacrifice for himself, but only for others. See Dave Armstrong’s take on 2 Cor 5:21 for more information there.

So, what do I think? The O.T. offerings never had the impression that the sacrificial animal bore the sins of the people (except for the scapegoat in Lev 16:10,21-22, and that animal was not slain, but rather “the LORD [made] atonement over it”). So, as I understand it (and I could be wrong, I’m still reading about this), Jesus was both the “scapegoat” (insofar as our sins are taken away from us) and the sacrificial lamb without blemish (which is the perfect offering for sin). Both are presented before God and both are accepted. God didn’t turn away from them.

 

[NotWorthy]

Also, as you suggest … the word used here may not imply the usual low ETOH, mildly fermented wine … but, perhaps a high sugar content wine, which would yield a potent ETOH concentration upon fermentation.

OK, so this is my point. If I recall correctly, you said that Jesus and the Apostles, at least some of our Baptist brothers claim, that they drank new wine, which would be alcoholic. Every time I see wine in the NT, even the new wine in Acts 2:13, it’s alcoholic wine,(which I feel has the double meaning I mentioned previous - they **are **drunk on the new wine of the Holy Spirit as they are breaking out the new wineskins of the New Covenant Church).

So I feel it is “reaching” to claim the Last Supper wine is anything other than wine with an alcohol content, because it should certainly be indicated if it is so different than the other usages of wine in the NT.

Our semi-Nazirite Baptist brothers are trying to fit their interpretation of the Scriptures into their self-made theology, so to speak.

 

[jmman]

This question came up in RCIA. One explanation offered was that since God the Father can never die it was necessary for Him to leave God the Son ,in his humanity, at death. We believe that Their Love was never severed.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Dodd when writing about messianic prophecy points out that a quote from a passage brings to mind the full passage for his hearers, readers in thier day. So, read all of that Psalm and you will see around verse 22 or 24 that God the Father did not abandon Jesus on the cross as is commonly believed by those who do not read the complete Psalm being quoted from.