Immanuel's Orphaned Cry – Disillusionment or Dependence?

6 · Johnson pivots from the Bowring illustration to his governing claim: the cry 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' is not a stumbling block but the very key to understanding the atonement

It is true, all the light of sacred story does gather round his head sublime. And the statement, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Rather than being a stumbling block, might well be the insight that would lead us to a full and true understanding of what happened when Jesus Christ died.

7 · Johnson catalogs the seven words from the cross and demonstrates that 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' occupies the structural center (fourth of seven) and is the only saying recorded in two gospels

If you look at all of the statements that our Lord uttered when he was upon the cross, and there are seven of them, one of the things you notice is that this statement is the central one of the seven on the cross. The Lord Jesus said, father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Then second he said, today shalt thou be with me in paradise. Thirdly he said, woman, behold thy son, behold thy mother, as he turned to John. Then the fifth statement was, I thirst. And the sixth, it is finished. And the seventh, father, into thy hands I commit my spirit. The fourth one, the central one, is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? When you look at these seven statements, you discover another interesting thing about them. Three of them are found in the Gospel of Luke in the 23rd chapter, and three of them are found in the Gospel of John in the 19th chapter. Incidentally, those three are not found in Matthew and Mark. So three are found in Luke and three are found in John. One statement is found in two Gospels. Only one of them is found in two Gospels. It is the statement here, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Which is found in Matthew and Mark.

8 · Johnson uses source-critical reasoning (whether Mark or Matthew was written first) to argue that the earliest gospel prioritized recording this particular cry

If you were sitting in a theological classroom and taking a course on the Introduction to the New Testament, or if you were in a religion class at one of our universities or colleges and studying the introduction to the New Testament or to the Bible, you would probably hear professors say that the first Gospel of the four written was the Gospel of Mark. It is the general opinion of contemporary scholarship that the first Gospel written was the Gospel of Mark. That is the viewpoint of modern scholarship. Ancient believers believed, however, that the Gospel of Matthew was the first, and generally speaking, that is their viewpoint. Although there is some question about the precise meaning of some of the testimonies, it is generally regarded that the early church thought Matthew was the first Gospel written. There are a few scholars who believe that Matthew is the first gospel written. It doesn't really make a bit of difference so far as the point I want to make is concerned. The facts are that the first statement of our Lord from the cross that was written in Christian literature, in the inspired literature, the first of the statements that he made from the cross was this statement, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? In other words, it would appear from this that the early church, the earliest church, thought that of all the seven statements that he did make, perhaps the most important is this very one, because it is found in our earliest Gospel, whether it be Matthew or Mark. It is almost as if they felt that in this statement we have the lesson, the doctrine, the revelation concerning the significance of the death of Jesus Christ. It is my opinion that they were right in this, whether that was their intention or not. It is true that in this statement, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? We have in truth the lesson of the atoning work of the Lord Jesus when he suffered and died upon the cross.

9 · Johnson reviews the physical and typological setting of the crucifixion

Let us review the situation and then look at the address. My God, my God. And then at the question, why hast thou forsaken me? We know from our studies last week that our Lord Jesus is hanging upon a cross at a place called Golgotha. Generally speaking, now we feel that this was a place outside the city walls, not inside the city where the church of the Holy Sepulchre is. Probably. Our Lord was crucified near the place called Gorton's Calvary. He was crucified outside the walls. That was very fitting in itself, because it was stated in the Old Testament, in the book of Leviticus, in those typical sections, that the sin offering should be offered outside the gate. In other words, in the taking of the animal outside the gate and in the burning of the animal outside the gate, there was an expression of the fact that this individual whom the offerings pointed to was a curse and under divine judgment, and therefore should be put to death outside the city, the place of communion. It was very fitting and very typical. And consequently it would be the fulfillment of the type in beautiful fashion if our Lord should be taken as the sin offering outside the gate and there put to death. So probably he did die outside the gate. The time, we have said, was from 9 in the morning until 3 in the afternoon. But at noon there came a supernatural darkness over the land, which lasted until the conclusion of our Lord's stay upon the cross. It may have been a repulsive spectacle. Someone has suggested that God brought the darkness over the land because of the repulsiveness of the spectacle, since our Lord had suffered greatly in a physical way from the Roman soldiers and the others who had crowned him with a crown of thorns and who had scourged him, a terrible punishment in itself. The Old Testament does have a statement in Isaiah 52:14, in which the prophet there, speaking of our Lord Jesus, said that his visage was so marred, more than that of any man. So it is possible that that darkness had something to do with it, but I doubt that that is the primary significance of it.

10 · Johnson expounds the symbolic significance of the darkness, tracing the pattern of biblical typology: physical events carry spiritual meaning

Thomas Spurgeon said it was midnight at midday. The darkness is a typical thing in scripture. As you probably know, darkness is generally associated with that which is evil. It is a striking thing, is it not, in the Bible? How often the physical events have typical or spiritual significance. Let me remind you that at the birth of our Lord Jesus, it is a star that is prominent, a star suggestive of light from heaven, a heavenly significance in the birth of the sun. So the star itself has significance. Associated also with the birth of our Lord Jesus were angels, angelic messengers who come from heaven above to give messages to men. Here, angels are also associated with his resurrection. For his resurrection suggests, of course, the fact that he shall ultimately ascend to heaven. We have other things. We have earthquakes which take place, are figurative of judgment. An earthquake took place at the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. As we shall see in the accomplishment of the exodus of the children of Israel from the land of Egypt. There was an unearthly darkness that came over the land in the midst of the miracles that Moses performed. That was the sign that the land of Egypt was under the curse. So the darkness at the time that our Lord suffered is very significant. As a matter of fact, it is the darkness that gives us a clue to the meaning of the cry. And it is the cry that explains the darkness. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me in the midst of darkness? It is a word. The darkness itself is a word that says what is happening has to do with a curse or with judgment upon sin. And the cry itself, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Gives us the significance of the darkness. It is a forsaking a judging on the part of the Father.

11 · Johnson delivers a methodological warning against two errors: agnosticism about the atonement (we can know nothing) and hyper-confidence (we know everything)

Now let's look at the address. My God. My God. I have often said, at least in the studies that I have given, that we must beware of two emphases when we talk about the doctrine of the cross of Christ or the atonement. We must first of all beware of an emphasis which is often expressed, that we really can know nothing of the atonement of the Lord Jesus. That to have a theory of the atonement itself is probably wrong. And if anyone should ever give biblical justification for that, they turn, if they want to do that, to a text like First Corinthians 13:12, which says, now we know in part, then we shall know as we are known. On the other hand, there are some who give you the impression that they know everything there is to know about what happened when the Lord Jesus died upon the cross. They point us to Isaiah, chapter 53:6, which all we, like sheep, have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. And say that expresses the significance of the atonement and expresses it fully. When we have said the Lord Jesus died a penal substitutionary atonement. We have said all that there is to say about the atonement. Now, of course, you've heard me preach enough to know that I think that a great part of the doctrine of the atonement is expressed in the theory of penal substitution. In fact, so far as I am concerned, that to me is the significance of our Lord's death. And it explains, as far as I understand, the primary significance of his death. But I think it is well for us to remember that there are things about the sufferings of the Lord Jesus, just as there are things about the Trinity and about the person of our Lord that we shall probably be studying when we leave this snow cursed atmosphere and move into heaven to enjoy some Bible teaching that is truly good Bible teaching, then we shall learn not only what we should not have learned down here, but we shall also learn some of the deeper things concerning the significance of the Lord's death. If it is true that our God is an infinite God and the Bible expresses it throughout, we can expect to continue to learn things about God throughout all eternity. We shall never know him fully. So I just utter these words as a kind of warning that we do not want to go to the extreme of saying we cannot know anything about the atonement, nor the other extreme, that we know everything about it. We should, it seems to me, listen carefully to that which the Bible tells us, study it with infinite patience and prayer, and seek to understand what God has in the way of illumination, realizing that there is probably more here than we at the present time have the capacity to comprehend. Oh, the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God. The apostle says In Romans, chapter 11, how true that is.

12 · Johnson contrasts Jesus's characteristic use of 'Father' (170+ times, including six of the seven cross-sayings) with the singular use of 'My God' in this cry

Now, looking at the statement My God, my God, I want you to notice the first statement our Lord made from the cross was, Father. Notice the word Father. Forgive them, for they know not what they do. The final statement that he uttered from the cross was, father, into thy hands I commit my Spirit. He began by using the term Father. He concludes by using the term Father. But in the middle he says, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Let's stop for just a moment and ask ourselves, is it possible that there is some significance in the statement My God, my God. Since in the other six statements twice he has said Father. Well, it's a very interesting thing. If you will take your concordance and look at the New Testament, you will discover that the Lord Jesus, when he refers to God almost 200 times, I really think it's about 170 times. About 170 times he refers to God as Father. So it was a very common thing for him to do. Incidentally, in the Messianic Psalms of the Old Testament, in Psalm 89, specifically the Davidic Psalm of the Davidic Covenant, it was said by the Holy Spirit to David that when the Messiah came, he would call God his Father. That's a striking thing that might not seem strange to you now because we're so used to calling God Father, but that is something unique. Let me point out this. 14 times in the whole of the Old Testament, God is referred to as Father. Never is he referred to as Father by any individual Israelite. No individual Israelite ever looked up to God and said, my Father. As a matter of fact, in Palestinian Judaism, there is, it seems, only one possible instance, and there is some question about that, of any individual ever addressing God as Father. And yet when our Lord came, He said, after this manner, therefore, pray ye, our Father who art in heaven. And He Himself used that term as his term for God in heaven. He did that because he was the Messiah. And it was said that the Messiah, when he came, would do that. As a matter of fact, Father is expressive of the revelation that came to him. As we read back in chapter 11 and verse 27, I will not refer to that great passage because we spent an entire morning on it. But you'll remember that it was the clue and the key to our Lord's revelation. It was as Father that He reveals God to us, he, the Son. And he has the sovereign right to do it. No one else is able to do it. Only he is able to do it. And he does that revealing work to whomsoever he wills. The term Father, it qualified him as a revealing God. By the way, the term that was used, abba, which became very prominent in Christian circles. And Paul says, the Holy Spirit has been sent into our hearts whereby we cry abba, Father. The term abba was a term that little children used of their father. It was not like pop pop, but it was very similar to it. And it had a connotation of that type of familiarity. That's one of the reasons why the Jews did not speak of God in that way, because it was so familiar. But our Lord used it. And the apostles were so impressed by it, they repeated that fact.

13 · Johnson completes the argument: Jesus addressed God as 'Father' in every recorded prayer except this one

Now, the thing I'm getting to is that our Lord Jesus characteristically used the term Father when he spoke to God. He used it many times, 170 times at least. It was a messianic sign. But here, in the midst of his suffering on the cross, he cries out, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Oh, well, of course, he can use God every now and then, can he not? Just for stylistic purposes. Well, did you know that our Lord we have a record of 21 of his prayers in the New Testament? These prayers, some of them are parallel, and I'm using the total figure. There would be about 16 or 17 prayers in all. Of all of the prayers that our Lord uttered to the Father. Only one of them, in only one of them did he ever address God as God in them. In every other petition that he addressed to heaven, he said, father, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit. Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. The only time that he ever addressed God as God here, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why? For the simple reason that when he was hanging upon the cross, the relationship that existed between him and God in heaven was no longer simply paternal, it was judicial. It is not now a son and a father. It is as a human being under the hand of his creating and judging God. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Never forget that it is as a judicial substitute and sacrifice that he addresses God. Here.

14 · Johnson resolves the central question: the cry is not disillusionment but dependence

Now we ask in the beginning, was our Lord's cry a cry of disillusionment? Or was it a cry of dependence? Well, will you look at what he said? He said, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Even in the midst of this suffering, of the punishment for our sin, in which he was separated from the Father, even in the midst of that, his trust did not fail. It is not, O God, O God, why hast thou forsaken me? It is, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? It is, as Arthur Pink said, a cry of distress, but not a cry of distrust, as Mr. Spurgeon said. It was an instance of man in weakness, but not man in revolt. And the way in which our Lord acted in the midst of his sufferings is so different from the way in which we act when we get into difficulty. We don't address God. We talk to our friends, we complain to them, and we speak of what God has done to us. We address ourselves to the world. We address ourselves to the world and talk about our distress. But he addressed himself to God.

15 · Johnson explains that Jesus's quotation of Psalm 22 was not spontaneous despair but deliberate Messianic self-identification

Incidentally, this is not a thoughtless word that our Lord uttered. That's why I had you read Psalm 22. Our Lord, in the midst of this suffering, reached back into the Old Testament, picked out a specific passage from Psalm 22, which he knew as a Messianic psalm, and took that statement, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? As his own? And then offered it back in prayer to God, recognizing at that very moment that he was the Messiah, and therefore identified completely with the statements that David had written hundreds of years before. As someone has said, he was not in some cosmic darkness, in some deserted no man's land, but he was praying within the congregation of the faithful. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

16 · Structural pivot from the address ('My God, my God') to the question ('why hast thou forsaken me?')

Now when we come to the interrogation, why hast thou forsaken me? We immediately launch into a discussion of questions concerning the atonement.

17 · Johnson surveys competing atonement theories (moral influence, Christus Victor, Anselmian satisfaction) and critiques them by their terminus: man, Satan, or God

I will pass over the historical interpretations of the atonement. I have made reference to them before. If you have a copy of the Believer's Bible Bulletin, there are a few sentences there concerning the Abelardian or moral influence theory of the atonement preached so often in our Christian churches today, which, while having a truth and expressing a truth, is so fundamentally limiting in the understanding of the atonement of Jesus Christ, and is, if it is the only understanding of the atonement that we have, sub Christian, a person who preaches only a moral influence or exemplary theory. The Socinian view of the atonement is preaching A theory of the atonement that is not Christian. There is the so called classic theory of the atonement which was so prominent probably in the writings of some of the early church fathers like Irenaeus. And then there was the anselmic view of the penalty of the satisfaction of God's honor. These theories of the atonement are interesting because the moral influence theory of the atonement terminates on man. The classic theory of the atonement terminates on Satan. It is the penal substitutionary theory that terminates upon God. While truth is found in each of these theories, if we are to have a theory of the atonement that is satisfactory, we must include the ideas that our law died as a substitute that he died bearing the penalty for our sin. The statement says, why hast thou forsaken me?

18 · Johnson explains why Jesus, as a divine person, would ask 'why?' — because in his human nature he must enter fully into human experience to be perfected as High Priest

One might ask the question, why did the Lord Jesus have to ask a question like that? Our Lord was a divine person who possessed a human nature. And in his human nature it was necessary for him to have all of the legitimate human experiences. And so consequently he, as he was hanging upon the cross, had to, in his human nature ask all of the legitimate questions that a human nature might ask apart from sin. And this question is a question, a cry for information. It is a cry for more information. Though as a divine person he fully understood all of this and had actually participated in the plans of it in the ages before our worlds ever began. But as a human being, he must enter into the experience of it in order that he might be perfected as our High priest. The writer of the Epistle of the Hebrews, explains all of that in his marvelous exposition of the work of Christ as our High priest. Incidentally, when our Lord said, why hast thou forsaken me? It was evident that he was consciously innocent of having given in himself any ground of why God should forsake him. I would never pray anything like this, why hast thou forsaken me? I could think of 10,000 reasons why God would forsake me. But he said, why hast thou forsaken me? And in that very cry expresses the fact that he does not know any basis himself for the forsaking of God.

19 · Johnson builds a cumulative case for substitution through rhetorical questions

Now we come to what it means when he says, why hast thou forsaken me? I would like to suggest that there are some questions that I may rhetorically pass on to you that indicate that substitution is the only explanation of the question that our Lord asked. Let me ask you. Would a loving God forsake the only good man who ever lived? David said, I have been young. Now I am old yet never have I seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread. But our Lord Jesus was forsaken, the Father said, with reference to him in him I am well pleased. Then would a loving God forsake the only good man who ever lived? No, not for his own sins or on account of his own goodness. That very fact indicates to us that there must be something else in this forsaking. Would a loving God injure the only innocent man who ever lived? Would he allow him to be? I can understand why he might allow others who are not innocent to be injured, but in his case, no. Why were our prayers always answered elsewhere? But it seems, if the psalmist is correct, that this petition is a petition that has no answer but the suffering of eternal judgment. I cry unto thee in the daytime and in the night seasons. I am not silent, and thou hearest not. The psalmist said, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? No answer comes. The only explanation of this is that our Lord Jesus is dying as a substitute for others. Not for his own sin, but for others. He is being forsaken for others sake. It is true that God is forsaking him, but it is not on account of anything in him. It is on account of others. Substitution can only explain it. As one of my teachers in Scotland used to say, the heart of the atonement is simply Jesus Christ stood in the stead of others.

20 · Johnson marshals and refutes an objection from George Buttrick, who called the God of penal substitution 'my devil

Now it seems to me that it is very strange in the light of this that many of our modern theologians seek to avoid the implications of the Cross of Christ. A great Presbyterian leader has said, if God dealt with him as if he were a sinner and the greatest sinner, then we must say of God, as a cynical Frenchman did say of the God of these penal theologies, your God is my devil. But I must say I prefer to follow our Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul and the other apostles than George Buttrick. The Bible, it seems to me, makes very plain that our Lord died as a substitute, and he died under the judgment of God. Penal substitution. It is an offense. It is an offense to be told that Jesus Christ bears the penalty of others sins. It is an offense because it tells us that we should die, and that is an offense to us. We do not like to be told ye must be born again. We do not like to be told that someone must die in our stead. We do not like to be told we are under divine judgment. We do not even like to mention the word sin in the 20th century. It is a bad word. It is too true. We cannot take it. But the Bible says very plainly we are sinners, we are guilty, we are under divine judgment.

21 · Johnson connects the cry from the cross back to Gethsemane, showing narrative-theological continuity

The cross and this statement especially is the inevitable sequel to Gethsemane. We studied a few weeks back our Lord in the garden of Gethsemane, and there he was, writhing upon the ground, crying out, o my God, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. The inevitable sequel of that is this cry which has in itself a kind of ruthless my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? That's what he was groveling on the ground about in Gethsemane. He knew what faced him here.

22 · Johnson establishes the necessity of substitution by appealing to the law's demand for perfect love and the universal human failure to meet it

Is substitution necessary? Substitution is necessary for these simple reasons. The law says that a man must love the Lord his God with all his heart, with all his soul, with all his mind, and his neighbor as himself. Thou shalt do you know, my dear friend, sitting in the audience, that you will never get to heaven unless you have perfectly kept that law. Have you done it? Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. Don't hold up your hand. If we were to ask the apostles to stand on this platform and the prophets and all of the other great saints of the Bible to explain to us how they kept the law perfectly, they would all shout in thundering tones, we have not kept the law, the law perfectly. We have sinned. Abraham, I am but dust and ashes. Job, I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee, wherefore I repent, abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. Daniel, my comeliness after I have seen thee is turned into corruption. Isaiah I am a man of wicked and unclean life and lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people that are similar. And all of the others down through the years, they've all confessed it. That's why substitution is necessary.

23 · Johnson returns to Psalm 22:3 to ground the necessity of substitution in God's holiness

Did you notice the third verse of the Psalm after he had said, I cry unto thee in the daytime and in the night seasons. I'm not silent. Thou hearest not, the text goes on to say, but thou art holy. In other words, it is the holiness and righteousness of God that condemns us. For we must have a holiness and righteousness that is satisfactory to this holy and righteous God. We cannot present it to him apart from our Lord's saving work.

24 · Johnson completes the substitutionary logic: the law demands perfect obedience or death

The law says, you either keep the law perfectly, which we have not done and cannot do, or you pay the penalty, and the penalty is eternal death. And if we therefore pay the penalty we are lost forever. There is no hope of our having any relationship to God. We have broken the law. We cannot pay the penalty. We need a substitute in whom we may pay the penalty. That is what God has given us. That's the gospel. He has given us a substitute, a surety, a redeemer, in whom we have paid the penalty. His people. He came to die for his people. He came to save his people from their sins. And when he suffered, he paid that penalty. Therefore, since he has paid it, there is no way in which heaven can demand additional payment. Heaven is satisfied. The holiness and righteousness of God is satisfied. Toplady is right. Payment. God cannot twice demand. First from my bleeding surety's hand, and then again at mine. I have paid the penalty in my substitute. That's why, incidentally, the Lord Jesus came to die for his people, for he paid a penalty. He was a true substitute. He really paid it. Therefore it would be unjust for heaven to demand further payment. Don't you see that? Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it wonderful to have a substitute in whom I have paid the penalty?

25 · Johnson identifies what was happening at the moment of the cry: Jesus was becoming the curse, becoming sin

That is what is happening when our Lord Jesus cries out, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? For he is becoming at that point, the curse. The darkness points that out. He is the curse. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us. He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might become the righteousness of God in him. A curse for us, Sin for us. My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me? That's why, as a result of that, we say, as we so often do, he will never leave us nor forsake us.

26 · Johnson identifies an eschatological implication: the darkness and the cry reveal what hell is — eternal separation from God

Well, I wish I had time to expatiate upon this, but we don't. It is a significant fact that our Lord, the light of the world, died in darkness. It is almost as if the light went out. There is a solemn warning, I think, in this. We have often wondered what it is. What is it to be in hell? This gives us a kind of clue. One of the things hell is, is infinite and eternal separation from God. The apostle Paul writes about the fact that when he shall come in his second coming, he shall mete out everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. That's what we have here. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

27 · Johnson narrates a personal moment of exegetical insight — while studying on a flight, he realized Jesus cried with a loud voice not for his own sake but for the sake of witnesses at the cross

Many years ago, I was coming back from Charleston, South Carolina, my home, and I was giving a series on the seven last words of our Lord. I was to give a message on Sunday, and this was Saturday. On this very text I had my Greek Testament with me. And I was meditating on the Greek text. As I left Atlanta on Delta Airlines and made my way back toward Dallas. I remember still sitting in my seat with the Greek Testament before me, just looking at the various words in the text and thinking about the message that I would be giving. I was impressed as I was trying to look at this text by the words Jesus cried with a loud voice. That seemed rather strange. Why did he cry with a loud voice? Why was that necessary in the first place? As I meditated upon finally came to me that it is possible Our Lord cried with a loud voice. Voice not for Himself at all, but rather for those around the cross. In other words, it was something that he uttered in the terror and the anguish of that moment, but also since he was in full control of his faculties with a view to others understanding what was happening there. So when he cried out with a loud voice, my God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me? It was not primarily for him. It was for them around the cross that they might have this illuminating word concerning the sufferings that he was undergoing and what they really meant. I am convinced that's why we have Jesus cried with a loud voice. I cannot prove that. I think my studies of the death of Christ go back many, many years, as probably most Christians do.

28 · Johnson illustrates the doctrine of substitution with a missionary story from Henry Mabie

There was a man by the name of Henry Mabie, who was a missionary statesman who has written several books on the cross. They are simple books, but nevertheless, at one time they were very good books as far as I was concerned. I remember a story that he told of the preaching of the Gospel in a tribe. For the first time. The missionary repeated the story of the cross. And as he finished, the chief of the tribe asked him to go over it again. So he repeated it again. Finally, when he came to the story of the cross again and he was unfolding that the chief stood up and interrupted him and said, hold on, hold on. Take Jesus Christ down from the cross. Take him down, I say. Jesus Christ doesn't belong on the cross. I belong on the cross. And the Holy Spirit has illuminated his heart so that he understood that it really was someone dying in the stead of others in perfect love. He dies for me. He dies for me. O all atoning sacrifice I cling by faith to Thee.

29 · Brief exhortation following the missionary illustration

May God help us to respond in that way.

30 · Closing prayer recapitulating the sermon's main points: we cannot exhaust the mystery of the cross, but we know God laid our iniquity on Christ

Let's stand for the benediction, Father. We know that we shall never exhaust shall only touch the fringes of the great truth of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. We thank thee, Lord, however, that the Scriptures do tell us that thou hast laid our iniquity upon him. What a heavy burden. And we praise thee that our penalty is paid in our substitute and we are free. Lord, we thank thee. We worship thee. We pray that if there are some here who have not believed in our Lord Jesus Christ, O God, touch their hearts and minds. Bring them to faith in him whom to know is life eternal. For Jesus sake. Amen.