Welcome To Dividing Word

Calvinists have a different view of the Atonement of Christ. Although it is a view commonly accepted among Christian Churches today, because of what was covered in previous chapters the problems with this view should be obvious. Here it is as quoted by Charles Stanley in his book on Eternal Security.

The strongest argument for eternal security is not Scripture, but this theory of the atonement.

Nowhere in the Scripture does it say that Jesus "paid for sin", or that he was punished by God for sin!

With careful questioning and logic, Stanley hopes to lead you down the primrose path. This is the faulty logic known as the "sins paid for; past, present, and future" approach. If your sins were paid for at Calvary: then which sins? All of your sins! In fact all of your sins were future sins 2000 plus years ago! If all future sins were paid for, then there can never be a possibility of being judged guilty in the future. What is the result of this? Eternal security of course! This sounds surprisingly logical on the surface, but leads to some difficult questions. This is what makes the "payment" theory so damaging to the gospel message, and being not found in scripture.

If Christ's death on the cross was a payment, to whom was the payment made? The Scriptures do not tell us. So how can we build such seemingly conclusive doctrines based on this? In fact, I will state that the reason that the Bible does not tell us is because there was no such payment!

If it were payment then would it not be logical to say that Satan was the one to be paid, since we belonged to Him? But it was not a payment, but a provision. And if a provision, then that means Jesus made a way for man to be saved and to have access to God by choosing to receive Him. Payment is something done without the effort of the one being bought. Whereas provision requires the one to "receive" that which has been provided. This is the real scriptural description of what Christ did for us, not a payment which is a fabricated lie of the enemy to deceive many.

Most Calvinists would say that this payment was made to the Father. But the Father is the one who sent the Son to be crucified and die for the sins of man. If there is payment involved, then that would require there to be a buyer and a seller. Since the Father sent the Son: that would make Him the buyer, making the payment through Christ's blood. And since Calvinists insist that payment had to be made for sin, it is also the Father who had to receive the payment. This would make the Father both buyer and seller. So in this theory God made a deal with Himself! The reason that this does not make any sense is because they have taken what could actually be used as a good metaphor to its logical end, which is incorrect use of a metaphor; and they have made doctrine out of it.

The payment for sins idea can make a great metaphor to explain what Christ did for us on the cross. But it is only a figure of speech! Any time you take a figure of speech to its logical end, adding everything else that would apply to the "figure of speech", then it will almost always cause a person to assume things that were not meant to apply to the example given. For example, if I were to say that the Christian life is like a fresh red rose in the spring time, I would probably be referring to the freshness of life, the sweet and refreshing fragrance that it gives off, and the beauty that it projects to others, while it is in its purest form. These few qualities using the rose as a metaphor can describe a fairly good understanding of what I feel or experience in my walk with Christ. But if a person was to take this example and attempt to use every aspect of the rose to apply to every part of the Christian life they would come up with an explanation that I would never have meant to infer through the use of this example. A person may take this and look further at the rose and say that a rose bush has thorns, and sometimes the Christian life has hardships; Every rose will die for a season, but will come back to life again; Roses come in different colors, just as times and experiences in life are not always what we expect, and so on. Many things can be added to this example that were never meant to be used, even though a few of these could be proper. I only meant to use what I did use, in order to help the hearer to understand what I was saying. To take it farther than what I intended would be describing something that I was in no way inferring in my description. This is what Calvinists have done with the payment theory. They took a good figure of speech and made it into a doctrine that the Bible does not teach. They added to a metaphor, making a doctrine out of something that is not even mentioned in scripture in the same way the describe it in their "payment" theory.

In our language we commonly use the figures of speech such as "pay the price", "high cost", or "price to pay". None of these ever refer to an actual paying for anything. These refer to the results of doing something wrong, from taking a chance, or sacrificing something. These have to do with consequences to our actions. In many cases it refers to a high risk. But in others it refers to the results we will have to face in doing something, fully knowing the end results. I have four kids in our home. They often want to have friends spend the night, usually a few at a time. I know that if and when I tell them that it is okay that there will be a "price to pay", both for them and my wife and I. We usually will want them to be sure to have their rooms in order, as well as the rest of the house. There will be messes to clean, food and snacks to give out, and other sacrifices to be made. We fully know the "price" before we ever say it is okay for them to have their friends over. It is this same kind of "price" that Jesus "paid" on the cross! It was the high cost or results of His willingness to be the sacrifice for our sins. But it was not at all a payment for sins! Nowhere does the Bible ever say it was payment! Payment, being bought with a price, purchased, etc. are figures of speech only, and not to say that because someone is "bought", that they cannot be "un-bought". A metaphor to describe salvation is never used to show that a person can reverse the process. It is used to show how we may get to salvation, with no intent to warn of falling away. Metaphors are therefore only useful for what they say: not for what they do not say. It is false interpretation of the Bible to add to these things, such as Calvinists have done.

The Bible does say that we were "bought" with a price. But it is also important to understand who or what was "bought". It was not our sins being "paid" for here. It is "we" who were "bought". The fact that we were bought with the high price of His death on the cross does not indicate that sins were paid for. What it does indicate is that we belong to Christ because we have received His provision for forgiveness. The only other alternative would be to belong to Satan. But through the shedding of His blood, and our receiving this atonement for our sins, we now belong to Jesus, as long as we continue in Him. But even though we do "belong" to Jesus, the fact that we do does not mean that we cannot fall away. Calvinists believe that it is not possible, because we belong to Him, and He will not let us go. But this would violate the free will of man to choose. Although we may be owned by Christ; through the shedding of His blood, and like Paul said "a slave to Christ", we are free slaves; able to choose whom we will follow. If we will choose to belong to Christ, then He will protect us, keep us from harm, use us for His glory, and take us into eternity to be with Him forever. There is great protection and joy in the hand of God, as we are His. But we are His only as we "abide" in Him. None are forced to remain there!

If payment was made for our sins, but it is conditional upon our receiving Jesus; that means that even though sins were paid for, we still were not forgiven until we repented. So even if all sins were paid for past, present, and future, condition must always be based upon repentance, even after initial salvation. But yet if Christ's death on the cross was payment for all our sins past, present and future, then in this theory we would have been saved before we ever first sinned, since all past sins were already paid for. This would even have to include all sinners in the world, eliminating our need to spread the gospel at all. The payment theory only brings confusion to the truth! Since sins were not "paid for", repentance is always necessary for continued salvation, just as it was for initial salvation. And a true Christian will always be willing to repent, but can possibly choose to rebel, in which those present or future sins are not "paid for"! Provision has been made so all they need to do is repent, and then they will receive forgiveness of sins.

If Jesus paid for sin, then there is no such thing as pardon or forgiveness! If I stand before a Judge guilty of an infraction of the law, he has two options before him. He can pardon and forgive me, or he can levy a punishment or a fine. He cannot do both; it is one or the other. If he accepts payment for my violation from an outside source, then the interest of justice is satisfied, and I must be released without any further obligation. But if my fine is paid, there is nothing to forgive! The opposite is also true. If he offers a pardon, he must not go through with punishment. According to this theory, payment for sins is substitution for man, but it really is not forgiveness. There is release from the penalty only! So if sins are paid for, it voids the necessity and the possibility of forgiveness, in which the Bible clearly says we all need in order to be saved. This leaves a big hole in the Calvinist theory of payment for sins.

What the Eternal Security proponents need to accept is, if sins were paid for, then God has never "forgiven" anything! The payment theory of the atonement voids the necessity and possibility of forgiveness! Calvinists may argue that what Christ did is He forgave us the debt that we owed. But nowhere does the Bible say that we had a debt that we had to pay because of our sin. Sin is not a debt we owed, it is the "wages" in which we will be paid: unless our spiritual status might be changed so that we will not be any longer bound to such wages. Payment of sins is not from us; it is to us. Therefore the payment metaphor is not proper, since Christ would actually be "receiving" our payment (wages) for us, and not "making" payment for us. Forgiveness cannot take place by someone taking our punishment for us, but only by the cause of such punishment being removed; which is our sin. If sin is removed, then the wages will no longer be "death", since there is no sin to be judged. This is what Christ came to do for us: to take away our sins, so we can be forgiven. Because Christ's death was not a payment, but rather was a provision for man to be saved, all men must choose to receive Christ's gift of salvation in order to be forgiven of their sins. Through provision only is forgiveness made possible! Colossians 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"

Christians have for so long been taught the "payment for sins" theory that it is very hard to get it out of our thinking. But it cannot be explained scripturally: but only figuratively. So many hold this teaching as the gospel itself in which they cannot let go, even though there is no support in scripture for it. To say that Christ did not "pay for sins", or "take our place" is not saying that Christ did not die for our sins or do for us what we could not do ourselves. Christ absolutely did die for our sins! But through it He made provision, not payment. Christ did not take our place on the cross, but He did die for our sins on the cross, making provision for forgiveness. If Christ took the place of anyone or anything it was the place of animals, which were sacrificed for sin under the old covenant. Even though He took their place, He did not die for animals! He was the one time sacrifice for all the sins of man, making provision for forgiveness. Payment could not do this and make any sense, since the unsaved are not forgiven without repentance. Payment does not require repentance, and it does not provide forgiveness. If payment were valid after repentance, it would also have to be valid when payment was made over 2000 years ago, since such a payment has already been paid. Provision requires accepting the gift of salvation, while payment does not.

The Bible never states even one time that Jesus was punished on the cross! So we must ask, what did happen on the cross? The Bible leaves no doubt and without exception reveals that Jesus suffered on the cross. Mark 8:31, "The Son of man must suffer". Luke 22:15; 24:46; 17:25, "before I suffer". Acts 3:18; 26:23, That Christ should suffer. Hebrews 13:12, "his own blood, suffered without the gate". 1 Peter 1:11; 2:21; 2:23; 3:18; 4:1; 5:1, because Jesus also "suffered for us...suffered in the flesh". 2 Corinthians 1:5, "the sufferings of Christ".

Charles Stanley writes, God made a swap. Actually, the correct term is imputation. He imputed our sin to Christ and His righteousness to us. This doctrine may be popular, but it is pure theological fiction! Guilt and righteousness are personal and cannot be transferred. You can no more transfer wisdom to a fool than you can transfer courage to a coward. If you were a thief, I could not transfer honesty to you anymore than you could transfer your dishonesty to me. Impute means to "count" or "reckon." It never means to transfer character! Faith is imputed (counted) for righteousness. It does not say righteousness is imputed (transferred) because of faith. We are only "counted" righteous because of the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. If He remains in us then we will become righteous in deed. If we choose to continue or return to sin then the Holy Spirit will not remain, and we will not be "counted" righteous any longer, because we are not righteous. To get the transfer that Charles Stanley and other Calvinists believe in, one must read that belief into the passages. This is another fabrication of words to prove something that the Bible does not teach. A lot of strength is given to the doctrine of Eternal security through this one word, impute. It clearly does not mean to "transfer" righteousness as they so consistently teach. The Holy Spirit gives the Christian the ability to live a holy and righteous life through the power of God, but does not "make" anyone holy and righteous outside of their own will. Therefore, no "swap" has been made at all! "Provision" has been made!

The logical course of the supporters of Eternal Security who cannot find a clear Scripture to defend their position is to fall back upon their twist on the atonement. If sins are "paid for" in the atonement, the logical end is inevitably the salvation of the one who is "paid for", unconditionally and irresistibly. The conclusion of such an atonement holds with them regardless of what the Bible may or may not say. It is a creation outside of the Bible and yet it does not need the Bible for endorsement. Because it makes sense logically, it is as good as scripture. This view of the atonement was developed to support and defend the conclusions of the Calvinistic system. This theory was created to fill a theological void within the Calvinistic system. Because they do not have enough scriptural proof, they must fabricate theories, logical stories and examples, and any other means to prove their points. It would be different if this view of the atonement were the clear and established understanding throughout all Christian history and had Biblical support. But Church history validates the newness of this thought within Christianity, proving this widespread theory of the atonement to be a Calvinistic support, and not a Biblical one. Even Arminian Churches have received this theory, not realizing its tie to Calvinism, in which it has rarely been challenged, since it seems to make sense. Many songs have even been written (many which we still sing in Church today), using phrases such as "He paid a debt", "My debt to pay", "He paid it all", etc. Although it all sounds good, it is not theologically correct.

This idea of "payment for sins" is so essential to the Calvinists argument that it is assumed to be "the truth" without any critical examination. What follows in this mode of argument is, if they cannot prove Eternal Security from Scripture, they move onto the next step in their theology, which is payment for sins; and if they cannot prove that, the next step is punishment.

If Christ was punished, then we must explain why. I cannot imagine that this could occur without good reason. It is taught that punishment must be for the payment of sins; but this assumes too much. The idea of punishment does not prove in any way that sins were paid for. To have a payment however, we must assume that there was a punishment. This circular logic of theirs is dogmatically asserted without any critical examination. Christ was the willing sacrifice for our sins, in which we have provision for forgiveness. There is no scriptural support that God punished Christ in order for this sacrifice to be valid.

Let me state that sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, justification, redemption, being brought near, putting away sin, suffering, dying for sin, and offering oneself up, is not payment. All of these have to do with provision.

Someone will ask the question, "doesn't the Bible say that we were "bought" with a price?" That we are a "purchased" possession? That we're "redeemed" and there was a "ransom"?" This is without a doubt true! But none of the above statements say, show, or prove in any way that Jesus was punished or that there was a "payment for sins".

To say that we are His "purchase" says nothing about a payment of sins. By the self-sacrifice of Jesus, all of us who were hopelessly lost on our own, became savable because of His death. Anyone that is ultimately saved is due to His atonement (provision). His death on the cross gives Him the rights to whatever fruit it bears. But because of His provision, not a payment! If it was a payment then all is complete for every man, and all who are His elect are automatically saved. But if a provision then it must first be received by the individual before there is any effect. Provision tells man that there is a way to be eternally saved, while payment would have to say that it is already done. If it is already done then there is no real need to preach the Word. If sins are paid for, then there can no longer be any eternal consequences for sin. But if it is provision, then all men must repent in order to receive salvation, and abide in Christ, abstaining from sin, lest they fall from such a provision for the salvation of their eternal soul. Payment eliminates the need for repentance, forgiveness, preaching, warning, and all else that we are commanded to do. The payment theory conveniently teaches that a Christian cannot fall away, since they have been "purchased by Christ". But being bought with a price does not indicate that we cannot fall away! It only indicates that Christ "paid a price" through His suffering on the cross, and since we accepted the offer of His provision we now belong to Him. But in no way do the scriptures say or indicated that one cannot return to an unsaved condition because they had been bought. But it does show the opposite! 2 Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."

Some see the term "redeem" as showing the necessity of a payment, meaning to "buy back". The fact that we have been bought or redeemed does not prove payment for sins, but it proves that there was a cost involved. There was a cost, but it was not a payment for sins. Payment for sins can be assumed only if it is read into the scriptures, but it cannot be drawn from them. Jesus death on the cross was an offering, a willing sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, through the provision of His cleansing blood; but it was never punishment to make payment for sins. Because of the fact that there was nobody to receive such payment, it therefore remains only as a cost. A cost requires sacrifice on the part of one, such as in a marriage relationship. There is much sacrifice on the part of those involved in any relationship in order to make it work. No one could ever make a payment to make a relationship work. It requires self-sacrifice, and many times provision from an outside source to make it work (Such as a councilor). There will be a cost or a "price to pay" as a figure of speech. But no one can buy a good marriage relationship. They must "pay the price" through sacrifice of their time and efforts to work on the relationship and if necessary go to a councilor. Because Christ "paid the price" for us on the cross, He has become our councilor, making a way for us to be restored in relationship with the Father. Payment could not restore this lost relationship from the fall of man, but only the "provision" of Christ could do so. Christ made the way through His death and resurrection, but we must be willing to "sacrifice" our old lives by laying down our sin before Him. Payment does not allow us to do such, since it is all done already. But provision allows us to humbly come to Christ, receive forgiveness of sins, to be renewed in Christ, and to be filled with His Spirit. Provision is 100% scriptural, while payment is not at all!

If sin is personal and cannot be transferred to another, then wouldn't that make God unjust by punishing the innocent? It certainly would! When He took sin upon Himself, He did not become a sinner! When the Bible says the He took all sin upon Him, it does not mean that He took care of the whole sin problem without the decision of men to turn away from it. To say that He took all sin upon Him is figurative, and shows rather that He provided a way for all sin to be destroyed and forgiven. It was not automatic without repentance; therefore it could not be payment.

All these difficulties vanish if we believe the Biblical information that Jesus voluntarily suffered for our sins instead of the absurdity of saying that He was punished.

Another problem for this theory of punishment is that it pretends to believe in the necessity of retributive justice. Retributive justice is defined as the distribution of rewards and punishments in a future life. The belief is that God must punish sin, and that this punishment must be eternal separation from His presence. This is the basis in which they believe the punishment of Christ is a necessity. But if Christ was punished for sin, He was punished for all sin. Therefore no man will have to fear eternal punishment. It still comes back to provision. Punishment is not scriptural. Christ suffered for our sins, willingly giving Himself. God so loved the world that He gave His Son to do this (John 3:16). Calvinists say God's "anger for sin" was against Christ because He bore all sin upon Him; therefore He turned His back on Christ when He was on the cross. This again is not scriptural! Although teachers and preachers commonly teach this, the Bible does not say any such thing. Both the great love of the Father and of Christ is clearly evident throughout every part of the crucifixion. Calvinists want to paint a picture of the father as a big mean, angry God who needed His anger cooled off by the death of His own Son. Somehow this cooled His anger enough to allow forgiveness of sins through Christ. This is a twisted view of the Atonement of Christ, and is not what scripture teaches at all. The Bible is clear that a man will be judged according to his deeds. But if Christ took our punishment on the cross, how can we be judged for any wrongs we have done? Even if these wrongs are only a loss of rewards, judgment is still going to take place, which even Calvinists will not deny. It should be clear that punishment and payment are not what the Atonement is all about!

I want to be sure you get this down well! We have been taught payment and punishment theories for so long that it will take hearing this several times over to change our thinking. If we sin, the penalty of sin is not "paid for"; forgiveness has been "provided". If the penalty of sin is "paid for" then we would never be able to be judged for sin. But even Calvinists believe that Christians will be judged for sin at the judgment seat of Christ. Although they believe that this judgment has to do with rewards, they still believe in "paying for" our own sins at this judgment. If sin is "paid for" then this could not be possible. But, if it is a "provision", then it makes sense to "suffer loss" on that day, for those who do not have good works (1 Corinthians 3:15). Some may claim that evil works are burnt up, but the Christian is still saved, so they are not actually judged for any sins. But to "suffer loss" or lose "rewards" is something that can have a great impact on eternity and is equivalent to judgment.

Some may ask, "Doesn't Isaiah 53:4-5, state that while Jesus was on the cross, God was going to punish Him?" "Surely our grief's He himself bore, And our sorrows he carried: Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, Smitten of God and afflicted, But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed." This is without a doubt the clearest prophecy about the nature of the atonement the Messiah was to suffer. Most who see a penal theme to this have not ever read the prophecy without a preconceived understanding. Notice that it says we did esteem him as stricken, smitten by God. Those who saw Christ suffer, instead of understanding that He was bearing the weight of the sins of others, imagined that He was suffering at God's hands for His own sins. God knew that people would misconceive what was transpiring on the cross. The passage does not state that God was to smite Him in any way. The scripture says "But." showing that it was really something other than what they assumed that was transpiring through His death. The punishment He received was of men, for religious purposes, not of God. He willing went to the cross for our sins, so that we may have forgiveness. He provided a way of salvation through His death and resurrection. He was not punished!

Some may say that verse 10 states that "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him." In what way was God active in bruising the Son? Genesis 3:14, 15, says, "And the Lord God said to the serpent...I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heal." It states clearly that the devil will do the bruising. He did this through evil, sinful men who beat Him. But the crucifixion could not have occurred apart from God willingly allowing it happen. In view of this, and that God foreknew the result that the atonement would bring, it can be said that God was pleased to bruise him, simply because He allowed it to happen. It brought the desired result: reconciliation between God and man.

The Greek word for reconciling is katallasso (kat-al-las'-so); to change mutually. Mutually means the possession or experience of something by two or more who are in agreement. In this scripture, who are the two that can mutually bring change to the world? God and Christ! It was not what God did to Christ, but what God and Christ did mutually that restored the lost relationship between God and man. Therefore, it could not have been a payment or punishment! Reconciliation does not mean or refer to either! Reconciliation is that God worked through Christ to take repossession of the lost souls of mankind.

Most commentaries interpret this as a sin offering, as most Bibles also say in their footnotes. This avoids the absurdity of saying that God caused sin to abide in Christ: The Father making the Son sinful in order to punish him. A sin offering is exactly that: an offering. An offering is not something that is punished, but something that is offered in exchange for sin, through repentance; it is something that needs to be received by God as acceptable. Calvinists prefer the punishment view, that would not be an offering, but would require Christ to become a sinner and thereby be punished. To say that Christ was made to be sin for us does not imply that He was punished, but rather that He was received as the sin offering for our forgiveness. It is preferable to view Jesus as the sin offering or sin-bearer for us. Whatever the becoming of sin is, it cannot be literally becoming sin, or sinful in any way. But for all who receive this provision through repentance, their sins have become the thing that die, instead of Christ who conquered sin, death and the grave. To say that He became sin for us is a metaphoric way of saying that Christ's death has conquered sin for us. He has taken our sins away!

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Some equate being a "curse" for us substantiates that He was punished for us. This statement by Paul is from Deuteronomy 21:23, in which he purposely leaves off part of the verse, "accursed by God" in reference to Christ.

If that applied to Christ on the cross, Paul would have said so! So in what way was Jesus a curse? The Bible says, "cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree". Anyone condemned and executed before men is the object of this curse whether they are guilty or not. If they are innocent, they are still the subject of ridicule and shame, and thereby accursed by men. If guilty or possessing sin, they are considered accursed of God. By this passage, Jesus was not accursed by God, but only by men. Being a curse for us refers to His humiliation before men in order to die for our sins. Not accursed by God for sin! Since Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, this would imply that God Himself, who is perfect, became a curse for us. This is not only impossible, but is ridiculous to assume that such could be so. God will not be in the presence of sin and hates sin; how then could He become sin?

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." This can be taken as a literal bearing of our sins, but because of the earlier mentioned difficulties, it would be more prudent to interpret this as baring the responsibility of our sins. The Greek term can, and should be translated as "bare up" our sins. This is the preferable translation, which also eliminates the possibility of saying that Christ "became" sin. This agrees with the prophecy of the atonement in Isaiah 53:12 where we are told that he Himself "bore up" the sins of many. To "bare up" sins is much different than "becoming" sin.

Many will then ask, "what about Jesus' death on the cross, when the Father was not present and Jesus cried out, `My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me' ". The common teaching is that the Father was turning His back on sin, as Christ was being punished in its place. But the Bible does not say that the Father was not present.

It is a true statement to say that Christ suffered for our sins. This was something that He did for us, in which we could not do for ourselves. But although this statement is true, it still is not true to say that Christ took our place on the cross. This is again a good metaphoric description of what took place, since Christ died willing for our forgiveness. But to say that Christ was punished in our place is incorrect. If Christ was punished for the sins of the world, then the world has nothing to fear as wages for their sins. Every single person in the world will then be saved if such punishment for sin has already been taking for us. Therefore, just as "provision" is a better description than "payment", so also "suffering" for us provides a better explanation than "punishment". Just as many have said "Christ paid for our sins, taking our punishment for us", it is better phrased "Christ suffered for our sins, providing salvation for all who will receive". Although these sound nearly identical in one sense, they are completely different when the first is taken to its logical conclusion. Whereas when the second phrase is taken to its logical conclusion, it lines up with scripture in every way.

God the Father did not punish Christ for our sins! It pleased God to allow Satan to have his way for this time so that provision for forgiveness of sins could be made. So God allow the affliction and crucifixion just as He allowed Satan to attack Job. Christ felt forsaken and alone in his humanity, but it was only for that day so that Christ would die for the forgiveness of sins. But because of Christ's divinity, God was certainly present during every moment. Satan and every demonic force rejoiced over His crucifixion with mockeries and tortures: but as the sin offering for mankind, Christ was not accursed or punished by God as assumed by so many. The affliction came from men, not from God. The Father only allowed it so that Jesus could be the sacrifice for all sins. If the Father had gotten involved when Jesus was on the cross then there would be no atonement. He would have destroyed His own plan of salvation. Christ's death was not to punish Him or to pay for sin. It was so that He could become the one time sacrifice for all, making provision for the salvation of all who will receive Him. Punishing a sinless man for the sins of others so that they could be seen as "righteous in Gods eyes" makes no sense! Neither does payment for sins! But Christ's suffering and provision lines up with the whole New Testament line of scriptures on the subject of salvation.

Nowhere does the Bible state that God the Father turned His back on the Son. This is incorrectly assumed by many because of this statement by Jesus while on the cross, which was a quote from the Psalmist David.

Jesus in His humanity spoke these words, fully realizing that God (who resided in His flesh) was able to deliver Him. He cried out in the anguish of His humanity, much like in the Garden of Gethsemane when He spoke "Father, if it be thy will, let this cup pass." But listen to Divinity: "Nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done. The struggle between His two natures was so great that it is recorded He sweated great drops of blood. Again, in the ship: As a man, he was tired and fell asleep, but as God He rose and bid the waves and wind "Peace, be still."

Jesus was subject to the emotions of humanity from birth even through to the sufferings on the cross. Jesus had other human emotions on the cross that had nothing to do with the sacrifice for sins. He was thirsty. He made provision for His mother to be taken care of by John. For Him to cry out as He did was out of His humanity, quoting from the Psalms, in His anguish. To assume that God turned His back on Jesus is to assume too much! It is reading something into the scripture that is not there at all. If Jesus is God, as most will believe, then the idea that God punished Jesus, or that He was accursed or forsaken is an absurdity. Suffering is undeniably evident in the scriptures, which is what Christ did for the provision for mans forgiveness of sins. Punishment is not found in the scriptures, and would require a separation of the Godhead, which is not possible!