The Father being angry with the Son

As I mentioned in my last blog my friend Peter Orr is something of a theological mentor for me. I asked him the following concerning Penal Substitution:

Paul:

Marshall (who defends Penal Substitution) points out that some criticise this doctrine claiming that it implies that the Father was angry with the Son. He claims that among serious theologians you will not find advocates of PS saying this. This raises a quetsion. 'If God is angry at sin (indeed he is personally angry with sinners), and Jesus takes our sin upon himself, in what way does Jesus experinece the wrath of God?' Would it be fair to say that on one hand he experiences the Father's anger in the sense of enduring the penalty for sin, that he is subject to God's wrath for the sin he bears, but he does not experience the Father's anger in the sense that the cross is an act of obedience and not rebellion so it does not result in Jesus being the subject of the Father's animosity?

Peter's reply:

I think you are right to distinguish how Jesus experienced his Father's anger and how he did not. The whole Trinitarian issue means you have to be very careful in how you understand the cross . . . Interestingly there is a bit of a difference between 'Pierced for our transgressions' and the 'Cross of Christ' in that Stott doesn't think we should use the language of the Father punishing the Son but rather think of God taking the punishment on himself. I would tend to go with PFOT but feel the weight of JS's objection.