Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
David uses the parable of the vineyard (Matthew 21) to argue that if penal substitution were true, the owner should be “happy” they killed his son—but instead he “will destroy those wicked men miserably”; what does this argument suggest about whether the Father’s posture toward the Son’s suffering is pleasure, necessity, grief, or judgment, and what does that imply about how God relates to human violence?
Another way to ask: David uses the vineyard story (Matthew 21) to argue the father isn’t pleased when the son is killed, but judges the killers. What does that suggest about how the Father views the Son’s suffering (pleasure, need, grief, or judgment), and what does that say about God’s view of human violence?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
David’s argument suggests the Father does not take inherent pleasure in the Son’s suffering, nor is the Son’s murder something that “placates” God; rather, human violence against the Son provokes judgment. At the same time, David maintains the sacrifice was God’s will and the Father was pleased with Christ’s obedience, not with the cruelty of the death itself.
- He says if penal substitution were true, the parable “should end” with God being “happy… This satisfied his justice… placated his wrath… reconciled with these vinedressers.”
- But Jesus’ parable ends differently: the owner “will destroy those wicked men miserably,” showing wrath stirred by the murder.
- David concludes: God was pleased Jesus was “willing to make this sacrifice,” but Christ’s “suffering and death brought no inherent pleasure to God… It didn’t satisfy his wrath.”
- He connects this to judgment on Jerusalem: God “visited destruction on Jerusalem… just as Jesus prophesied.”
- He repeats the distinction: God wanted the sacrifice “out of God's love for us,” yet the act of killing the Son is treated as wicked.