Does Matthew 27:46 and Psalm 22:1 necessitate adopting the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement?

[John Caldwell]

@Enoch111 has complained about my method of looking at one verse claimed to support Penal Substitution Theory at a time (Penal Substitution Theory and the presupposed (eisegesis) definition of מוּסָר in Isaiah 53:5, post #2) but I think that this is necessary as we cannot simply make a claim and through out dozens of verses that do not actually support that claim. I believe it is important to find out if the claims are true and the only way I believe this can be done is to look at the passages (not an amalgamation of God’s word and man’s word, not at a theory, not at a bunch of verses removed from context and gathered together, but by looking at Scripture itself).

Here I want to look at the claim that Matthew 27:46 and Psalm 22:1 say that God was punishing Jesus instead of punishing us. (see @Enoch111 's claim, Posts#2, Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”)

Matthew 27:45-49 Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" And some of those who were standing there, when they heard it, began saying, "This man is calling for Elijah." Immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink. But the rest of them said, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him."

The claim is that this verse states that God was punishing Jesus instead of punishing us on the cross. I think it is obvious that this is not stated at all, but rather those who presuppose the Theory (those who would read Penal Substitution Theory) into the words “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?"

What assumed is that this “forsakenness” means “punishment”. Another (and more common) view is that “forsaken” here means to leave in dire straits. This is how the word is used often in the Old Testament in reference to people like Leah and Ruth.

More importantly this is how the word is used in throughout the Old Testament in reference to Israel. In Deuteronomy we read that God will not fail or forsake Israel, but in the same book we read that God will forsake Israel to their enemies.

The word itself does not mean “punishment” and the passage does not state anything about God punishing Christ instead of punishing us. This is an idea those who hold Penal Substitution Theory superimpose on the verse.

Even in verse 49 we see that the immediate audience did not understand Christ’s words to mean “why is God punishing me” as they view this as a cry for help rather than a declaration of punishment.

Psalm 22:1-2

My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning. O my God, I cry by day, but You do not answer; And by night, but I have no rest.

Here the word used to mean “forsake” is ‏עָזַב‎. It can mean abandon, failed, committed, leave undone, and neglect.

The same is true here as was true in the previous verse. “Forsake” does not mean “punish” or “divine punishment”. The Righteous One in Psalm 22 is forsaken to suffer (left to suffer, not delivered from suffering) but as we read the Psalm we find that this Servant was never abandoned but is in fact delivered – not from suffering but through suffering. Christ is “made perfect” through this suffering. Christ “learns obedience” through suffering.

Nowhere is punishment even mentioned in this passage (I am not sure why @Enoch111 believes it proves Penal Substitution Theory, hence this opportunity for those who follow the Theory to explain their position).

 

[DNB]

Well, if you don't mind JC, I'd like to agree with you that that verse, in and of itself, does not confirm, or even intimate that Christ was being punished by God.
What a strange declaration that would be for Jesus to make, for someone who was so fully aware of God's calling for him? Jesus is asking 'why have you forsaken me', as if he doesn't know what's going on? In other words, was Jesus actually unaware that in 3 days that God was going to raise him from the grave? Of course not, he prophesied this to his disciples on several occasions prior to his death. Did Jesus not know that he would ascend to glory, to sit on the right-hand side of God for eternity, after his crucifixion? Obviously, yes! So how in the world could Jesus authentically, and sincerely, believe that he was abandoned, on any level, by God?

The passage must be alluding to another meaning altogether. Either Jesus is merely bringing attention the entire Messianic prophecy in Psalms 22, by referring to the start of the pericope (common Hebraic practice), or it offers some other figurative sense? Either way, if Jesus bore our punishment on the cross, why do we still die? Not to mention, he seemed to suffer the same penalty as the other two malefactors to each side of him, making his demise no worse than theirs. i.e. he clearly was not bearing all the sins of the world simply by the act of the cross, it was rather the significance that God chose to give it, which gave it its efficacy...

...Jesus' death ended the Law, he was the final sacrifice for sins, for his worth was greater than that of bulls and goats, and thus, removed the curse and condemnation that the Law brought to all before God. For a covenant can only be broken by blood, which is what Christ offered. And any covenant established by God, will never be dissolved unfulfilled.
And thus, after all this was complete, God was able to institute the new Law, that of faith. (This is my understanding of the Atonement).

BTW, sorry JC, I actually read your post on 'My views of the Atonement', but i wasn't actually able to gather what position that you held? Meaning, I may have spared offering my views for fear of being irrelevant to the thread at hand .