There are those in the Christian community who deny that Jesus experienced the wrath of the Father as a substitute for and representative of sinners on the Cross. These people eschew the penal-substitutionary theory of the Atonement preferring instead some other theory of the Atonement such as the Governmental view, the Moral Influence view, or the Ransom to Satan view, or the Christus Victor view.
Loathing for the idea that the Son was a penal substitute for elect sinners has long been articulated. Going at least as far back as Peter Abelard (1079 – 1142) men have chafed at the Anselmian developed idea of the Son undergoing the wrath of the Father in the offering Himself up as a blood sacrifice to pay the penalty for sin. Below is a succinct clip of how Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) explained this in a conversation with his student Boso,
Anselm: So no one except God can make the satisfaction.
Boso: That follows.
Anselm: But no one except humanity ought to do it — otherwise, humanity has not made satisfaction.
Boso: Nothing could be more just.
Anselm: … So if no one except God can make it and no one except man ought to make it, there must be a God-Man to make it.
Boso: Blessed be God.
Abelard who lived concurrently with Anselm wrote of this Anselmian view;
“Indeed how cruel and wicked it seems that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person as the price for anything, or that it should in any way please him that an innocent man should be slain — still less that God should consider the death of his Son so agreeable that by it he should be reconciled to the whole world?”
And the liberal wing of the Church has followed Abelard on this ever this with much the same complaint. Of course, Abelard’s complaint breaks down as a complaint against both justice and mercy. It is a complaint against justice because Abelard implies that the penalty paid by the only one who could successfully pay it is somehow cruel of God. It is a complaint against mercy because Abelard would not have God convey mercy to others on the basis of the Son paying the penalty for sin.
Of course, what Abelard failed to see then, and what those who hate the penal satisfaction theory of the atonement fail to see now is that God, in the incarnate 2nd person of the Trinity is the one who pays the penalty of sin Himself. God demanded the price be paid (without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin) and it is the God-Man in a display of mercy who pays the price that was justly demanded. Where Abelard is the cruelty and wickedness in that?
Having said that what does the Scripture say about this matter of the Son bearing the Father’s wrath against sin. The Scripture speaks with a clear voice on this matter.
Consider just a few examples.
Mark 10:33 “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and deliver Him to the Gentiles;
1.) The phrase “handed over to the Gentiles,” is a phrase that is pregnant with meaning that when examined pulls back the curtain that the Son endured the Father’s wrath in His death.
In the OT to hand someone over to the nations (Gentiles) was the equivalent of handing them over to God’s wrath. We see this in the way of warning God gave to Israel in its early formation as a promise to Israel should they break His covenant. God promised that He Himself would hand them over to the Gentiles;
Leviticus 26:32 I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it.33 I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you; your land shall be desolate and your cities waste….38 You shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up.
Much later God delivers the same kind of warning and promise to the Northern Kingdom (Hosea 8:10). A promise that was ignored leading to God’s wrath handing them over to the Assyrians.
Though they hire allies among the nations,
I will soon gather them up.
And the king and princes shall soon writhe
because of the tribute.
Judah ignored the Northern Kingdom being handed over and likewise experienced God’s “handing over” wrath — this time to the Babylonians. When Israel reflected back upon this notice how they spoke about what happened,
And He gave them into the hand of the Gentiles,
And those who hated them ruled over them. (Psalm 106:41)
This reflection is recorded again in Ezra,
9:7 Since the days of our fathers to this day we have been very guilty, and for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plunder, and to humiliation,[a] as it is this day.
The intertestamental period also records this reflection;
“You were sold to the nations, not for destruction, and because you angered God; you were handed over to your enemies.” (Baruch 4:6)
This kind of language is also used during the Maccabean period in the Maccabee’s struggle against their enemies.
When we move beyond the Cross we hear echoes of this “handed over to the Gentiles” type of language in the book of Acts as another way of speaking about God’s wrath.
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; (cmp. 3:13; 4:27-28)
In Mark 10:33 Jesus states that he “will be delivered to the Gentiles.” As we have seen this is a phrase that has a linguistic history and is the equivalent of saying that he will be delivered over to the wrath of God. Just as Israel and Judah suffered exile being delivered over to the nations as evidence of God’s wrath upon them, so the greater Israel, the suffering servant, was to be handed over into the hands of the nations by Israel’s “leaders.”
When Jesus says that He “will be delivered to the Gentiles,” He is saying that He will be delivered over to the Father’s wrath.
2.) Mark 10:38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” (cmp. 14:23-24; 14:36)
Jesus uses the imagery of the cup and it consistently holds a reference to His coming death. The idea of the drinking of the cup, like the phrase “handed over to the Gentiles”, points to the idea of Jesus bearing the wrath of God.
If we consider the OT in passages like Pss. 11:6; 75:8; Hab. 2:16; Isa. 51:17, 22; Ezek. 23:31-34 we see the usage of the “drinking of the cup” as imagery signifying wrath.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=+Psalm+11%3A6%3B+75%3A8%3B+Habakkuk+2%3A16%3B+Isaiah+51%3A17%2C+22%3B+Ezekiel+23%3A31-34&version=NKJV
The imagery of draining a cup to the last dregs is a powerful picture of being forced to swallow the inescapable and just judgment of God’s wrath. Typical of Israel was that she was convinced that the other nations would have to drink this cup but God’s prophets made it clear that she too would drink this cup.
3.) In Mark 10:38 cited above, there is also a parallel reference to the Baptism with which Christ would be baptized. This idea also points us to Jesus enduring the wrath of the Father.
In point of fact as we listen to Jesus’ words in Mark 10:38 referencing Baptism we could well hear the echoes of the Messianic Psalm that is Psalm 69. In Psalm 69 we hear how baptizo was used metaphorically for being overwhelmed with sorrows and trials. In this Psalm, the psalmist uses the image of Baptism for the overwhelming troubles that he was facing.
“Save me, O God!
For the waters have come up to my[b]neck.
2 I sink in deep mire,
Where there is no standing;
I have come into deep waters,
Where the floods overflow me….
14 Deliver me out of the mire,
And let me not sink;
Let me be delivered from those who hate me,
And out of the deep waters.
15 Let not the floodwater overflow me,
Nor let the deep swallow me up;
And let not the pit shut its mouth on me.
In this Messianic Psalm the psalmist also cries out,
17 And do not hide Your face from Your servant,
For I am in trouble;
Hear me speedily.
Added to the connection between Baptism and God’s wrath we see the Psalmist fearing God’s face being turned from him. This “hiding of the face” is likewise imagery of God’s wrath.
So, Mark’s Gospel when listened to attentively against the backdrop of the rest of Scripture clearly teaches that the Son is to experience the Father’s wrath. This is seen in Jesus’ language of “being delivered over to the Gentiles,” as well as His speaking of drinking the cup and of being baptized.
_____
This is a distillation in my words from what I have learned from Peter G. Bolt’s “The Cross From a Distance; Atonement in Mark’s Gospel,” pages 58, 66-71.
