Back to sermon search

Full transcript

Our topic tonight is to be the substitutionary atonement of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. That is a foundational doctrine of the Christian gospel, but it has been many times criticized in the past, and still is being criticized, not only in the world at large, but even in religious circles. We shall therefore return to the books of Samuel later in our discussion to see what how it may help us in the matters concerning forgiveness on the one hand, and the punishment of sin on the other. But let's start by celebrating, shall we, one of the glorious features of our Christian gospel. And that is precisely this, that upon repentance and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, we are not only forgiven instantaneously and justified from all things from which we could not be justified by the law of Moses, but immediately we are given access into the divine presence and know ourselves welcomed before God. We have access into the holiest of all, and know his loving arms of embrace, and the kiss, such as the prodigal father gave him when he returned from the far distant land. So let's celebrate this wonder, shall we? Being justified by faith, says Paul in Romans chapter five, we have peace with God. And not only peace with God, but access, if you please, access into this grace wherein we stand and may stand confidently without fear of being dislodged. And says that same Paul in Ephesians chapter two, talking of our blessed Lord who came and preached peace to those that were near, that is to his Jewish people, and to those that were far off, that is to us Gentiles. Paul adds, through him we both have access in one spirit unto the Father. Immediate access and assured welcome in the presence of God. And lest our hearts grow fearful, Hebrews chapter ten reminds us that we have not only, uh, access into the holiest of all, we have boldness. Let us come boldly to the throne of grace. We may come boldly and enter into the holiest of all, it says, our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies bathed in pure water. What a glorious thing that is. Now, unfortunately, there are some believers who do not yet enjoy that glorious sense of access into the divine presence. I was with such a study group some years ago, and they felt you couldn't be sure of heaven. And I said to them, in a half comical way, of course, I said, you know, that's very odd when people say to me, you cannot be sure of heaven. I say, that's odd because I was there today. I said, how could you possibly be there today? Well, I course it, I meant to provoke them, but that's what it says, isn't it? Access into the holy place, that is, in the context, the holiest of all through the blood of Jesus. Knowing ourselves welcome. Why is it that some believers don't have that sense of access and welcome? Because still in their thinking, there seems to be as follows, that yes, when Jesus died, he died that we might be forgiven, and our sins are forgiven up to the moment. But of course, there remains the big future. And what should happen if we fall short? And since we can't be sure of that future according to their outlook, then we cannot be sure of heaven. Against that stands, of course, the wonderful assertions of Holy Scripture, boldness to enter into the holiest, seated with Christ in heavenly places. If we then inquire, how can we have this access, and on what basis, and what has happened to make it possible? The answer, according to the New Testament, is that the Savior has suffered the wrath, the holy indignation of God against our sins, and Christ has suffered to the full the indignation and wrath of God that our sins provoke. He suffered it on the cross. Therefore, because he suffered it in total, there is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. That indeed is one of the first results of the gospel. The Epistle to the Romans, which is the mod- the New Testament exposition in detail of the Christian gospel, begins by telling us why we need to be saved. Why do we need to be saved? The first reason it gives is this, because the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness of men. That is why we need to be saved. To be sure, there are many other reasons why we need to be saved, but this, in this epistle, stands first, because the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness of men. But then that very same gospel tells us how this wrath of God has been met for those that trust the Savior. And in the chapter three of that same epistle and verses twenty three to twenty six, Paul outlines this how can it be? You see, he he says that, um, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith by his blood. Now that's a long word for a Friday evening, is it not? When we are all tired after the exertions of the week, propitiation. And it would be good if there were a more modern equivalent thereof. But the particular emphasis in the term propitiation as used in the New Testament is this, that what Christ has done and what has he has suffered has dealt with the holy indignation of God. For God doesn't take our sins. When the Bible talks of people being reconciled to God, often commentators suppose that that means that God changes us, changes our hearts through the glorious message of the gospel, and therefore we come to see that he welcomes us. But while that is true, the al- the the uh other thing is true, that to be reconciled to God, Christ had to put right what was troubling God himself. The offense that our sins caused to Almighty God. So that the death of Christ was a sacrifice, what the Bible calls a propitiation. His death answered the holy indignation of God against human sin and satisfied God's wrath. If we would like a particularly lucid and brief s- summary of that, we could do no better than Galatians chapter three. That says this, Christ became a curse for us. For it is written in the Old Testament, cursed is he that hangs on a tree. And Christ was crucified on a cross of wood. In the Old Testament, people that had committed some grave sins, such as murder, would be put to death, generally by stoning. But if the crime that a man had done was so hideous. After they had put him to death, they took him and hanged him on a tree as a spectacle to earth and heaven. And then by sundown they had to take him off the tree and bury him. The In fact, fact was was this, accursed is everybody that in that sense hangs on a tree. And our blessed Lord, does it not touch our hearts as well as our consciences, that we might be forgiven. Was hung upon a tree under God's curse. That he might bear for us the indignation of our, uh, uh, uh, that our sins provoked in God. And to satisfy God. And God has raised him from the dead. For God delivered him up for our justification, uh, uh, for our trespasses, and has raised him again to show that we are in the clear who trust him, raised him again for our justification. And therefore, Romans five, as it comes to the climax of the first major argument in the epistle, assures us in these terms, do you see, that, um, God commendeth his own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, much more than being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him. No fear, therefore, in the future of the wrath of God. That, as I understand it, is the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of our blessed Lord Jesus, which he made at Calvary, when God visited upon him the iniquity of us all. As the ancient prophet put it, he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquity. The chastisement that brought our peace was laid on him. It was God's own purpose to crush him. He had put him to grief. But as you will know, there have been and still are many objections to this doctrine of the wrath of God. First of all, we can consider those that come from, uh, the, from Christendom in general. In the days when I was an undergraduate reading classics, I became aware that among the theologians objected to this whole notion that God laid his wrath upon our blessed Lord on account of our sins. They said we had the wrong idea of the wrath of God. The wrath of God that the New Testament talks about God is descriptive of what could happen to you or to me, for instance, if you came by a live coal fire and you were stupid enough to put your hand into the fire, you would get burned, you see. You can't say that's God's fault, or it happened because God was angry with me, but it is the way that God happens to have made the old universe and our world in particular, so that if somebody accidentally or stupidly puts his hand into a burning fire, they will suffer. And this is what the theologians wanted to say the word wrath meant. They will suffer the wrath, do you see? Hm. If you don't know what you're doing when you're fiddling with high-powered electricity, watch out it doesn't burn you to a cinder, if it should happen to do that. That's, uh, not God getting angry with you. It's simply the way he's made the universe. You see, it's a lovely universe, isn't it? But it isn't everywhere safe, and you have to treat it with caution. Yes. So they said that was what, uh, r- the wrath of God was. It wasn't his personal anger against sinners, and certainly when Jesus Christ died, he didn't die, uh, suffering the wrath of God for our sins. What did he die for then? Well, where one John chapter two says that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, the Revised Standard Version puts a different metaphor altogether. He is the remedy, which you will observe is a medical term, not a legal term. He is the remedy for the, um, uh, uncleanness of our sins. Avoiding the notion of the wrath of God. And there are many that have followed that idea, have they not? So we are reminded these days that we ought to forgive everybody, whether they repent or not. It is our Christian duty to forgive them. Why so? Well, Christ, they say, has set us the example, and when he was crucified, he prayed, Father, forgive them. So we should forgive everybody. And in fact, God has already forgiven everybody. And the cross of Christ tells us, according to this theory, that you can treat God just how you like, abuse him and persecute him and hang him on a tree, and God still loves you and has already forgiven you. But that is not true. Our Lord's famous words, Father, forgive them, if we will only read them in their context, he spoke at that precise moment when the Roman soldiers had taken him and driven nails through his wrists and his ankles. And he prayed for them. Father, forgive them. They don't know what they're doing. They were but Roman soldiers. They were, this was their duty. They crucified many, here was one more, and they crucified him too, without realizing even what the term the Messiah of the Jews, the King of the Jews, meant. It didn't bother them, they just didn't understand. Father, forgive them, said Christ, they know not what they do. It was a very different thing for the people that did know what they were doing. So, God hasn't already forgiven everybody. There is forgiveness available. But as the last verse of John chapter three tells us, he who believes, he who sh- uh, or he or she who believes, anyone who believes is not condemned. Anyone who does not believe, having heard the message, that is, is condemned Condemned already. already. That's, thus runs the gospel as in the New Testament. But let's turn, shall we, from objections that have come, uh, from the Christian community. I mentioned one more from that direction, but then it raises very serious questions about its author. In an evangelical paper of not so long ago, another wise evangelical editor put that if it were true that God bruised his son and punished his son, then God ought to be prosecuted for child, uh, abuse. That borders very near apostasy, doesn't it? When Holy Scripture itself, in the words of the prophet, says it was God's purpose to bruise him. He has put him to grief. But let us come to further objections that come from the level of moral philosophy. At this level, there are three theories of punishment generally thought of and mentioned. The one is that punishment is a retribution for some misdeed or crime that someone has done. Then there is the element of reform. The punishment helps to reform the criminal. And then there is the element of deterrence, that the punishment meted out to the criminal will, we hope, deter him from ever doing such a thing again, and will deter everybody who hears of it not even to try to do it. Three theories of punishment. Now, in the days when capital punishment was being debated, many philosophers denied the function of retribution. They said it was a nonsense. They said, you see, here's a man and he's murdered his fellow, you see. Well, that's bad enough, an act of violence. How does it help, they say, if the state commits another act of violence and executes the murderer? They said it was absolute nonsense. And why should anybody be put to death for breaking some abstract rule that Parliament may have passed or something? And they were for getting rid of the whole notion of retribution. And while the debate over capital punishment has long since passed, yet even when it comes to imprisonment for serious offenses, there are those who say that no, it's no good. Uh, why not any good? Well, it doesn't do the second function. It doesn't, uh, uh, reform the prisoner, putting him in prison. So don't put him in prison. Whatever he's done, he doesn't deserve to be in prison, and then putting him in prison doesn't reform him. And then they come out with statistics that suggest that putting somebody in prison doesn't deter the man himself. He's just as liable to do it again. And it doesn't deter other would-be criminals who copycat the same kind of offense and find themselves in prison. The famous C. S. Lewis, late of this city, argued against these ideas very potently. He said that, of course, the first one, retribution, was key to the others, for retribution says that the criminal really deserved it, and whether the punishment cures him or not, or whether it deters him or anybody else or not, the fact remains he deserved it, and therefore the punishment is imposed. And C. S. Lewis argued that if you do away with that notion of retribution, that is, the man deserved it and is being paid back for doing it, then the other two become exceedingly dangerous. For if the prisoner, if the criminal doesn't deserve the punishment, what right have anybody to punish him as a deterrence? Pause and think that one through. If and for stealing, uh, your Rolls-Royce, this criminal over here, do you see, is had up in jail, do you see? And the charge is that he deserves to be put in jail because he stole, and that's against the law. Yes, but suppose we don't agree that he deserves anything in the, just for breaking the law. Well, have we any right then to punish him so it shall be a deterrence? Because if he doesn't deserve it, well, what I could take an innocent man, such as some of you, and I could say to the public, I'm now going to punish him full s- full, he doesn't deserve it, I'm going to punish him nonetheless, because this is what would happen to you if you did such and such and such and such. He hasn't deserved it, I know, but you say it's not a question of desert anyway. That would be bad, wouldn't it? The French used to, uh, subdue rebellions in the army that way, didn't they? They would get the people to number, you know, as they do, up one, ten, and so forth, and then they would say every tenth man stand out, and he would be shot, whether he was a rebel or not. As the French would say, it was done pour encourager les autres, to encourage the others, you see. It has been done, ladies and gentlemen. And if you get rid of the notion of desert, you could just use innocent people and punish them to deter others from doing anything bad. And as for reforming, if punishment is meant to reform somebody, well, now let's consider the situation. In Russia, in times gone past, those who did not believe in Marxism, and Christians in particular, were said to be worthy of imprisonment. Only they were imprisoned in mental hospitals, because the diagnosis was that they must be astray in the head to disagree with Marxism. So they were being reformed, cured, you see, of this unhappy state of mind. In that case, of course, there was no question of they must be in this prison for so long because they deserved it. They were there till the doctors cured them. And who should tell when they were cured? Well, the very same doctors, of course. So if they were imprisoned until they died, well, that was that. They were doing their best to cure them and reform them. You start by taking away the, the notion of desert. Then, said C. S. Lewis, you are on very dangerous ground indeed. These, then, are some of the swells that go on in the ocean of worlds, the world's opinion. Our Christian gospel, if we are faithful to it, stands by the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He bore our sins and the wrath due to them in his body on the tree, that God might be just. For the penalty has been exacted, and yet the justifier of him who believes in Jesus. But now we go back to our book of Samuel, and we are to read together part at least of two Samuel chapter fourteen, where we are going to find an ancient argument against punishment. So if you're ready and have found the place, we shall read it together. Let me just sketch in the background. This was in the reign of King David. Now, some years earlier, a prince of David's line called Amnon had developed a passion for a princess who was, in fact, the sister of Amnon's brother. And Amnon had raped the girls. Was waiting out at his farm when he was sheep shearing. He was allowed to invite the sons of the king, and Amnon among them. And at the king, of course, was horrified and distressed. Absalom, who had ordered the murder, ran away into exile voluntarily, which shows this, that in such a case of deliberate murder. So he ran off into exile, and there he was for three years. The sense of loss at Amnon's death grew fainter in David's heart, and he was poor boy is dead. And you can't keep up this kind of thing forever. I can tell you one thing about Absalom. He was absolutely boss magnificent. Not in the hip- hippie style, um, uh, necessarily, but properly tended, you see. And he had a haircut once a year, and it was so much hair they weighed it in the scales, you see. Upright, commanding man, booh, go places would Absalom. And had, uh, Celebrity Magazine been around in the time, Absalom would be earning a lot of guineas by being photographed therein. And David was finding his heart was going out to Absalom. And David's commander in chief, whose name was Joab, saw which way the king's heart was ticking, you see. And he thought up a scheme to persuade the king that it was all right, uh, to bring Absalom back and let him come back, even though he had murdered his brother. And the scheme was this. He got a wise woman from Tekoa to come to the palace, and she was to put on widow's weeds, you know, dress up all in black, uh, and uh, as though her husband had been a long time dead. Pray don't forget it when you get to it, that this is all pretense. And whether she had an onion or two in her pocket so that she could squeeze it and that would bring a few tears at the right moment when she stood before the king, who knows? But anyway, that she did, you see, and came with her request to the king, and it was all put up by Joab. And when she came into the king, it tells us, do you see, uh, verse four of chapter fourteen, when the woman of Tekoa spoke to the king, she fell on her face to the ground and did obeisance and said, help, oh king. And the king said to her, what's wrong with you? And she answered, of a truth, I'm a widow woman, and mine husband is dead, you see, and thy handmaid had two sons, and they strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but the one smote the other and killed him. Oh dear, you see. Mm-hmm. And, and, a- a- and now the whole family has risen against thine handmaid, and they said, deliver him that smote his brother, that we may kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew, and we shall destroy them- him even though he's the heir. Thus shall they quench my coal which is left, and shall leave to my husband neither name nor remainder upon the face of the earth. Particularly those that had a farm or some inheritance of dying, and their name be blotted out as though they never exist. They had a horror of that. They fell out and they argued, and then they fought each other, and accidentally one killed the other one. And now the, the kinsmen are coming and saying, deliver the murderer up and we'll kill him as well. But if they do that, I've lost two sons. And what is more, I have no more sons, and my husband is dead, and our family name will die off from the estate as though we never had been. It's stupid, this punishment business. Doesn't do the dead man any good, does it? If you put the other to death, it'll do our family a lot of harm. Do you get the argument? This, this punishment business is stupid. You'll see. And the king, listening to it, said to the woman, go to thine house, and I will give charge concerning thee. But she wasn't a woman for nothing. She wasn't going to take just one answer. She was going to make her point, and the king was going to be tied down before he realized it, so he couldn't get out, do you see? V- verse nine: And the woman of Tekir said to the king, my lord, o king, the iniquity be on me and my father's house, and the king and his throne be guiltless. What does she mean by that? Well, she senses that her suggestion that a murderer be spared was somehow not altogether square with the law or with people's conscience, let alone the Bible. So she said, well, uh, thank you for saying, uh, you'll deal with this and you- you'll- you'll not let anybody touch my son, and I'll take the blame for it, sir. That was generous of her, wasn't it? Talking to the king like that. So you needn't fear that it might be illegal. I take the blame for it. And the king said, whosoever says ought to thee, bring him to me, and he shall not touch thee anymore. Then said she, I pray thee, let the king remember the Lord thy God, which is a technical phrase for let the king invoke the name of the Lord. In other words, says the woman, I want you, king, to swear an oath in the name of God that you won't let anybody touch my son. She's tying him down, do you see that? If you've never met a woman of Tekoa before, well, let me tell you, she's not a woman for nothing. She may say a lot of words, but they are very deliberate, and now she's got the king tied down. He's going to swear an oath by Almighty God, and he can't go back, you see. And the woman, uh, uh, uh, and the woman said, wherefore hast thou devised such a thing then against the people of God? For in speaking this word, the king is as one which is guilty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished one. Well, that took some courage, you'll have to give her that. Bare face to tell the king that he was guilty. But this was the whole point. None of that rigmarole was true, of course. He didn't have a husband and two sons and all this kind of thing. That's made up. It was made up by Joab to get the king to say, yes, woman, I'll see to it that the murderer, your son that's the murderer, is not punished, so that then Joab could make his point to the king, and why are you insisting on keeping Absalom at a distance then? He's afraid you'll punishment, punish him if he comes home. Why are you keeping him there? If you say it's all right for my kinsman not to kill, execute the murderer, well, then you are guilty if you don't yourself bring back Absalom and have him executed. You must let him back and assure him he won't be punished. That's what she's arguing, you see. uh, now she s- gives her reason, dear old soul. Number, verse fourteen, You see, why don't you bring Absalom back? For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground which cannot be gathered up again. We have a slightly different, uh, metaphor in English, not water cast on the ground which can't be gathered up, but n- we have it. It's no good crying over spilt milk, is it? You see? You see, David? Amnon, your dear son, well, he's dead now, isn't he? And punishing Absalom for the murder won't bring the man back. We are as water spilt on the ground, you know. You can't gather it up again. Won't do the dead man any good then, if you punish Absalom? Hmm. Thing to be pondered. And then she had two more things to say. One of them is true, the other is a downright lie. But in the manner of her master, his satanic majesty wraps around the lie with a large coating of the sugar of truth. Do they? The lie? God himself doesn't take away life, she says, but devises means by which he's banished, be not forever separated from him. Now that last bit is true. God has devised, we Christians know it. He had devised means in the Old Testament in their sacrifices. Now we know it through Christ. God devises means by which his banished be not forever separated from him. That would deserve an hallelujah, even on a Friday evening, you see. But what's the lie she wraps it in? God doesn't take away life. How could David be deceived by an argument like that? When the Old Testament of Moses, anyway, if it was written by that time, was full of examples. The soul that sinneth, it must die. But it sounded good. Pretty if you put it in those two, you know, you wrap the argument together, uh, uh, and it looks good. God doesn't take away life, but deviseth means by which he's banished, be not separated from him. And when the king heard that bit, he be- the penny began to drop. Tell me, he said to the woman, did you make this up yourself, or did Joab suggest this to you? And she said, oh, my king, you are an angel, you know. Well, what can you say to a woman that tells you you are an angel? I mean, say. You are a angel, you couldn't hide anything from you. Yes, that was Joab. And the king said, all right, Joab, I grant you your request. And Joab thanked the king and went away, uh, to bring Absalom back. So while Joab's gone, we'll take advantage of that to do a little thought experiment. I'd like you to come with me now and have a word with the dead man. See, we imagine him lying there on the ground. Of course, he's dead, so he can't hear nor speak. Well, I'm just going to pretend, why shouldn't we, that he can hear and speak, because I'm going to have a word with him. Hello, old chap. What's happened to you? I'm dead, he says. Well, yes, so we can see. How did it happen? My brother. We had a little argument, and he hit me so hard he killed me. Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. No. Yes, but the dead man says, and what are you going to do about it? Well, what do you mean, what are we going to do about it? Well, I've got my rights. I once had a life, and he robbed me of my life. What are you going to do about it? I say, come, come on, come on now, be grown up, do. Do you see? We are but as water spilt on the ground, you see, aren't we, that cannot be gathered up. I mean, it's no good crying over spilt milk, old chap. You're dead now, aren't you? Nothing we can do can alter that. That isn't fair, he says. Well, that's what your mother says. Oh. Because the question come then, isn't, did she ever love me? You'll see. Let's address the whole question. You and I live in the same road. You observed that from time to time I drive very care- carelessly my car, and sometimes I drive it under the influence. And you have s- decided that it is very dangerous. And you come to me and you, you plead with me, look here, you must be more careful how you drive, and please don't drive when you've had some drink, you see, because if you don't, you'll, you'll, you'll kill somebody down this road one day. And sure enough, one day in that condition, I run into her daughter and kill her. Does it matter? Ten years later, shall we say, well, she's dead now, isn't she? Did it matter? I tell you something. If I were to do that and remain unrepentant, God would hold it against me for all eternity. Why? You say because he is full of revenge or something? No, because he loved your daughter. He will never say that sin against a human being didn't matter. And if God is going to forgive the murderer, then says God, I must be just in doing it. Cannot be seen that I said it didn't matter. The penalty must be paid. And the marvelous gospel is that God, in the person of his son, not only decreed the penalty, but bore it. That God might be just. And the justifier of him who believes in Jesus. But Joab's come back, and he's got Absalom. Says, uh, David, um, all right, Joab, now you've had your way, but yes, he can come back and live in Jerusalem. He shall not see the king's face. I won't have him in my presence. Is that forgiveness? We started off thinking about forgiveness and what it means through the Christian gospel, and the Christian gospel declares that upon repentance and faith, we have access into the divine presence. And And the the ki- kiss of God upon our cheek. And David said, yes, he can come back, but he cannot see my face. He mustn't be brought into my presence. David shows he had a bad conscience about it, doesn't he? That isn't forgiveness. Absalom wasn't content with that. Some while later, he summoned Joab again and told Joab to bring him to the king. Joab didn't come, however. So Absalom, fine gentleman that he was, set light to a field of barley that belonged to Joab and forced Joab to come. You are, Joab, to take me into the king, says Absalom. And if the king finds any iniquity in me, let him kill me himself there, there on the spot. That is what you call defiance. He knew that the king, having called him back, would not execute him. And he is going to force the king to let him escape punishment and be accepted at court. And so Absalom came to the king, and here are some of the saddest words in the Old Testament story. David kissed Absalom. There wasn't an I'm sorry. Never I wish I hadn't done it. Not a question of please forgive. Arrogant. Denial of punishment or the right to be punished, forcing himself into the king's presence. What does it lead to? It wasn't long after that. But what Absalom led a conspiracy and drove King David off the throne. If God didn't take sin seriously and demand it be punished, it would force God himself off the throne. Da- Absalom got advisors. One of the best of them said, Absalom, the thing you want to do will come to you. Yes, said Absalom, that sounds to me very nice. How's that for repentance? Absalom didn't like that kind of thing. When he came to Jerusalem, there were the king's wives. Absalom took them publicly while the king was still alive. And one of his commanders killed Absalom. And when the king heard the news, instead of thanking the people of the army that had risked their very lives to save David, David ignored them and went into the upper room above the gate, sobbing his heart out. Oh, Absalom, Absalom, Absalom. So the people didn't know what to make of it, and they slunk away ashamed. Well, Joab, the commander, ran upstairs and kicked David down. Go down, you fool, says he. Here are these people. They've risked their very lives to save you. And Absalom's troops have killed many of them. That's their devotion to you, David. And you are making more fuss of the criminal than you make of his victims. That can often appear so in our modern society. So David had to come down, oh, but what a heartbreaking moment it was, and sit in the gate, and the people came by, and he had to thank them for kibbling his son. You say it was an impossible position to be in, wasn't it? Yes, it was indeed. Lord God, I died for thee, Absalom, my son, my son. You see, if David had been just a king and not his father, David could have seen that justice was done, and as as he had done in countless other cases. But he wasn't just a king. He was a father. If he were a father only and not a king, he could perhaps have found it in his heart to forgive Absalom, but he was a king, responsible for public justice. Impossible situation. Oh, Absalom, says he, my son, my son, would God I died for you then. And David's heart cry comes through the centuries, doesn't it, down to us. The great problem of human sin, the wrath of God, and yet the love of God. If God were simply the moral governor of this universe, he could have let us be executed and care nothing. But God is our Creator. Loves us with the Creator's love. All my people. Ah. Ah. Would God I died for you. But that is the amazing truth of the gospel. God, in the person of his son, delivered up for our offenses. God's own son hung on a tree, cursed under the wrath of God. Would God, I died for you. Ah, but our God in Christ did precisely that. And what a gospel we have to preach. Not brushing sin under the carpet, but sin fully faced, the sanctions of God's law honored. And because of the atonement through Christ, we the guilty go free. And the moment we repent, we may come into the King's presence, access, see his face, and sense the kiss upon our cheek with the whole heaven of presence with God and with Christ for all eternity. God give us good understanding of his word.