Was Jesus "cursed" to Hell (Gal 3:13 - Part 2) - More problems with Penal Substitution

Years ago I had written about Galatians 3:13 and whether it supported the Protestant doctrine of Penal Substitution (see HERE), which I've written many posts on this blog about. The basic claim of Protestant advocates is that when St Paul says Jesus "became a curse," they say this 'clearly' teaches that Jesus suffered the eternal spiritual torments of hellfire that we deserved. One of the most popular conservative Protestant preachers of our time was RC Spoul, where he preached on this very issue at a major conference: "Jesus had some experience of the beauty of the Father until that moment that my sin was placed upon him, and the one who was pure was pure no more. And God cursed Him. It was as if there was a cry from heaven—excuse my language, but I can be no more accurate than to say—it was as if Jesus heard the words "God Damn You." Because that's what it meant to be cursed, to be damned, to be under the anathema of a Father." (Ligoner Ministries 2019). Protestants cite Gal 3:13 as if it explicitly meant God the Father cursed Jesus with eternal wrath, basically eternal damnation to hellfire. The reality is, that is reading way too much into the text and even causes many problems, some of which I have already highlighted in Part 1. In this Part 2, I will take a look at another historical view of this text that doesn't get much attention but which I feel makes far more sense.

The primary dispute on this verse is what does "cursed (by God)" mean. The Biblical term "curse" refers to speaking/wishing evil upon someone, whether deserved or not. It is not some generic term for "damn to hellfire". In fact, the term "curse" as it is used in the Bible refers almost always to physical evils that come upon someone or something. For example God curses the serpent, saying it will now slither across the ground (Gen 3:14), and God curses the ground after Adam sinned, saying the ground will now produce thorns (Gen 3:17). Noah curses Canaan saying Canaan will be a slave and mockery. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha calls a curse on some boys mocking him, and a bear came and tore them up. Jesus cursed the fig tree by saying it will never produce fruit again, and it withered and died (Mt 21:19). There are even times when God is said to make someone "a curse," such as in 2 Kings 22:19, Jeremiah 24:9, 25:18, all referring to the land becoming desolated as a result of the Israelites' sinful behavior. Most especially is Deuteronomy 28:15, which lists a bunch of curses God will do to the Israelites if they break the Mosaic Covenant, including sickness, drought, famine, defeated in battle, blindness, anxiety, scabs, tumors, etc. This Deut 28 curse section is the very context of Gal 3:10-13, which is what Paul is directly citing. This Biblical understanding of "curse" fits far better with the notion that Jesus was publicly humiliated with crucifixion than it does of the Protestant presumption that it must be speaking of some invisible damnation curse by the Father. And that leads us into the "new insight" of this post.

Recall that Paul is not 'randomly' saying Jesus became a curse in Gal 3:13, but that Paul is actually citing Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which says:

22 And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

Notice the verse is largely focused on taking care not to defile the Promise Land, and thus the cursed language actually more of a parentheses. So what is it about a body on a tree that defiles the land? Many would say that what "defiles the holy land" is the presence of gravely sinful individuals, such as criminals running around unpunished, which is understandable (cf Num 35:34; Lev 18:24-25). But in this case, it is specifically focused on the burial process, which I'm not sure if other texts address. This verse is unique and somewhat mysterious. This is when I came upon some Biblical commentary that indicate some commentators interpret the "cursed" (by God) text not as God cursing the individual, but rather of the mutilated body being a blasphemy, reproach, curse, etc, against God. For example, the predominant Rabbinical reading is that since man is made in God's Image, then to mutilate or defile the body is basically an insult, blasphemy, etc, against God. This fits with why the Torah forbids certain tattoos, certain fashions, certain grooming, etc, because it is human mutilation. It not only messes with the people, but it is also a bad testimony to others when you're supposed to be a good example to them. (How tragic it is when we see our fellow citizens mutilating their bodies, often because they are deeply wounded inside.)

When the human body is treated like garbage then it is an insult to God's prized creation made in His image, and it is a very pagan thing to mutilate the body. We see how disgusted we get when we think about the Aztecs who used to mutilate their enemies while still alive, and how dark of a cloud comes upon our nation when we think about abortion happening everywhere. When we see in National Geographic type magazines the Islamic form of punishment, namely decapitation, cutting off heads, cutting off hands, cutting off feet, etc, we become repulsed. Similarly, when we see a corpse hanging from a tree or pole, we become grossed out. We are not grossed out or repulsed from mere capital punishment, but rather only those which are popularly called "cruel and unusual" punishment. So similarly, imagine what God sees when the human body is mutilated. In this situation, while it was necessary to have crucifixion for grave offenses, the Mosaic Law put limits on this.

Saint Jerome mentions that some translations had even captured this "curse in the sight of God" rendering, in his Commentary on Galatians (HERE):

Why Catholics MUST believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture

For those who don't know, the Pre-Tribulation Rapture is a Catholic dogma that Protestants took from us and turned it into a heresy. The Protestant doctrine of PTR teaches that Christians (specifically White Evangelical Americans) will be taken away to safety in Heaven before the world gets too difficult to endure, because they think true Christians shouldn't have to suffer in this life. But the Catholic dogma derived from Scripture teaches the exact opposite. The truth is the PTR has already happened, and applies to those who have already endured some of the most painful suffering in this life. Since the dogma of "The Pre-Tribulation Rapture" is too long of a phrase, the Church decided to shorten it down to just calling it the "Assumption," where the Blessed Virgin Mary was taken up to heaven some time around 66AD, just before the Tribulation began on Jerusalem, ending with the destruction of the city and Temple in 70AD (just as our Lord predicted, see Matthew 24). In this post, I would like to look at some of the specifics of the Protestant heresy/perversion of this orthodox Catholic dogma.

One mediator between God and men - Does 1st Timothy 2:5 teach Sola Mediatora?

The main goal of this blog is to help improve our understanding of what the Bible is teaching, and not merely to 'refute' opposing claims. For example, one major theme of this blog is to address the Protestant doctrine of "justification by faith alone" by delving into what Paul is actually saying in the exact same texts Protestants bring up, rather than running elsewhere to other verses (e.g. James 2:24). It doesn't do us much spiritual good if our only use of the Bible as Catholics is to dodge the Biblcal verses which Protestants (or other groups) bring up "against" us. In this post we will look at the common case of Protestants attempting to refute the Catholic doctrine of "intercession of the saints" by their citing of 1 Timothy 2:5 where Paul speaks of Jesus as the "one mediator" between God and mankind.

The standard Catholic "response" to this shallow "Sola Mediatora" argument basically reduces down to the Catholic saying: "Isn't asking someone to pray for you also a form of mediation? So logically not all mediation is excluded." While this 'logic argument' response is not wrong for amateurish level of discussion, it is technically wrong on the deeper level of us not attempting to study the text to understand what Paul is actually saying.

Our goal when looking at Scripture is "exegesis," that is to understand what the text is saying, and be less concerned with how we can rescue our theology. We shouldn't fear what the Bible has to actually say, and in most of my study of Scripture, when you really understand what Paul is saying (especially in Romans), then the Bible 'comes alive' within your own life and spiritual growth. How often is the Bible basically ignored by Catholics who are secretly afraid that Paul could be teaching Protestant doctrine? We need to correct this mentality, and the best way is to seek to study the Bible on a deeper level than merely surface level reading of half sentences the way Protestants typically approach the Bible. In this instance, we will see that the Protestant approach to 1 Tim 2:5 is actually completely ignoring not only the context, but the full sentence itself. Thankfully, in doing some research to this post, I have found other Catholics also refusing to be satisfied with the standard "we ask others to pray for us" response.

Does Rom 5:19 prove the Protestant doctrine of Imputation?

Saint Paul says: "By one man's disobedience many were made/appointed sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made/appointed righteous." (Rom 5:19). Some Protestants claim this is an important proof text for their doctrine of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, because here Paul speaks of believers being "appointed righteous," which they say is different fromactually being made righteous. I want to address that claim here, because it isn't as strong of an argument as they think.

Several years ago I was reading Reformed Baptist pastor John Piper's defense of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and I recall he had commented on this very issue in his Protestant apologetics book "Counted Righteous in Christ" (available for free on Piper's own site here). Piper explains his interpretation of Romans 5:19 on Pages 108-109, which I've trimmed down for length but kept the essential parts:

Update: Google-Blogger "hiding" posts

 I have been very busy with life the past month or so, meaning I wasn't able to post anything new. As I was looking up my powerful 2 Corinthians 5:21 article to share with someone, I noticed it was missing. It turns out the Google/Blogger automatic scanners had flagged some of my posts as violating community guidelines, and reverted them back to Drafts. This is obviously a mistake and so I requested them to be reviewed, but it is sad I was not made aware of this by email or a notification. It not only caused some of my favorite articles to be hidden, it could also have lead to hiding my blog from searches. I think they will be put back up, but just be aware in case your own blog loses posts. It's a good idea to back up everything, which can be hard if you have a lot to post about.

How Seventh Day Adventists changed the Sabbath (and blamed Catholics) - kind of a big deal Pt.3

From my recent posts (here) and (here) discussing the clear distinction between what takes place at the synagogue versus what takes place at the Temple, it has led me to consider the Seventh Day Adventist's claims about the Sabbath. One of the SDA's central accusations is that the Catholic Church allegedly "changed God's day of worship from Saturday to Sunday". But if "worship" wasn't taking place on Saturday (particularly not at the synagogue) then the SDA's entire foundation is obviously deeply problematic. 

First, let's consider the Seventh Day Adventist official website's Fundamental Belief #20 "The Sabbath" (here), and the parts which I think need to be highlighted:

The gracious Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God’s unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. (Gen. 2:1-3; Exod. 20:8-11; 31:13-17; Lev. 23:32; Deut. 5:12-15; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Ezek. 20:12, 20; Matt. 12:1-12; Mark 1:32; Luke 4:16; Heb. 4:1-11.)

The Sabbath is a day of rest, reflection, enjoyment and worship for God’s people. It dates back to the seventh day of the creation week, when God stopped His work and took time to rest and savor it.

When God rested on the seventh day, He set for us an example. He gave the weekly Sabbath as a day of rest and worship for all of mankind.

“He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law…” Daniel 7:25

When Jesus lived here on earth He kept the seventh day Sabbath. However, just a few hundred years after His death and resurrection, early Christians began keeping Sunday as their day of worship just as Daniel foretold. 

The change of the Sabbath as the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday happened in the year 321 A.D. The Roman Emperor Constantine issued a decree that all Christians were to begin observing Sunday as a day of rest.

[Seventh Day Adventists] decided they would begin to keep the biblical Sabbath even though most churches worshipped on Sunday. Keeping the 4th commandment became a distinctive part of their [SDA] worship. 

Notice that throughout their doctrinal explanation the SDAs use the word "worship" with regards to the Sabbath and the 4th Commandment ("Keep the Sabbath"). But what if terminology like "worship" is never to be found in any of these Biblical passages they cite as their primary proof texts, especially the 4th Commandment? That would be deeply embarrassing.

You can look at all twelve proof texts they have cited above (here). Notice that the language of "rest" and "do no work" appears multiple times. Yet, nowhere does the term "worship" or related language appear in any of these passages. This is kind of a big deal. From the outset, it looks as if the Seventh Day Adventists went around inserting or projecting the idea of "worship" onto the Sabbath day, when in reality the Bible only sees the Sabbath as a time of "resting". How could they make such a blunder?

Synagogues aren't Temples - kind of a big deal Pt.2

From my recent post (here) discussing the plain distinction between the synagogue versus the Temple, it has let me to look into the "Biblical details" more of each institution, including the key passages which were already cited. This study is important because if the Bible does use worship type language in regards to the synagogue, then it would mean the prior post would have to be significantly retracted or modified. However, if the Bible does not use worship type language with regards to the synagogue, then the prior post is more firmly established.

To begin, the Greek word "worship" appears about 60 times in the NT, and it is largely used to refer to people "bowing down" in reverence. That said, "worship" is clearly tied to Jerusalem, and specifically the Temple, is clear from Luke 2:37; John 4:20-21; 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11; Heb 9:1;  Rev 11:1 (1 Cor 14:23-25; 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 15:4-5). Worship is associated with "religion" and "altar" (Acts 17:22-23). Worship is "regulated" by "covenant" and holy places (Heb 9:1-2).

I did not see the synagogue mentioned in any of these verses, implying "worship" (in the Biblical sense) does not take place in the synagogue. So far this data fits with the Catholic thesis that I wrote about in the prior article. Now onto the next word to look at.

The synagogue is not the Temple - kind of a big deal

The New Testament speaks often of Jesus and the Apostles visiting various synagogues, but the synagogue is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Isn't that strange that a major facet of Jewish life in the New Testament doesn't get any (clear) mention in the Old Testament? This got me thinking about the origins and meaning of the Synagogue.

The various encyclopedias that I've come across say the synagogue originated around the time of the Babylonian Exile (600BC). Thus, while the term "synagogue" (and "church") literally means a gathering or assembly, the term synagogue referring to a "house of worship" (as we now think of it) didn't come around until 800 years after the Israelites left Egypt (1400BC). The Catholic Encyclopedia says on Synagogue:

It was probably during the Babylonian captivity that the synagogue became a national feature of Hebrew worship. Afar from their Temple, the exiled Jews gathered into local meeting-houses for public worship. Sacrifice was denied them; prayer in common was not. The longer their exile from the national altar of sacrifice, the greater became their need of houses of prayer; this need was met by an ever-increasing number of synagogues, scattered throughout the land of exile. From Babylonia this national system of synagogue worship was brought to Jerusalem. That the synagogue dates many generations earlier than Apostolic times, is clear from the authority of St. James: "For Moses [the Torah] has been proclaimed in every city since ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (Acts 15:21).

The consensus of most sources is that since the Israelites were removed from the Promise Land and their Temple destroyed during the Babylonian exile (600-530BC), they obviously could no longer worship as they once did, and thus they needed to improvise. During the Babylonian exile, they were allowed to gather somewhat, read Scripture somewhat, have sermons, pray, etc, and so this became a new standard feature of Jewish life. Since many Israelites/Jews were scattered abroad and never returned home, the synagogue system became especially necessary to carry on their faith. 

The Mosaic Law foresaw the Israelites worshiping through a Sacrificial Priesthood, which after arriving in the Promise Land became centered in Jerusalem at the Temple (Jn 4:19-21; Jn 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11; Rev 11:1). Sacrifices are a prominent theme from the earliest pages of Genesis, and sacrificing to God was a central theme in letting the Israelites go free from Egypt (Ex 8:25-29 - 1400BC). Even coming back from the Babylonian Exile (530BC) had prioritized getting the Temple back up and running as soon as possible, and the Feast of the Dedication (Hanukkah) was about re-consecrating the Temple just 150 years prior to Jesus. So to just stop sacrificing is not really optional, and in fact it is a serious deformation of the Israelite religion to not have sacrifices going on (e.g. the book of Leviticus is dedicated to priestly sacrifices). Since the synagogue system was never about sacrifices this would strongly suggest it is not an actual (nor approved) replacement of sorts for the Temple sacrifices. The fact that during the ministry of Jesus the Temple sacrifices were going on at the same time as synagogue attendance even more strongly indicates they are not the same in the (ancient) Jewish mind (John 18:20; Acts 24:12). This realization, namely the the Synagogue is clearly distinct from the Temple, has serious ramifications for how we as Catholics (and Orthodox) view both the Jews and Protestants.