Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history?

I believe we can look at sin in two ways. Sin is an action (whether a physical act or an act of the mind). Paul teaches the equality of all men (both Jew and Gentile) in his statement that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. His comparison was a violation of the Law (for the Jew, along the lines of Adam’s transgression) and a violation of God’s law given in the conscious of men (for the Gentile).

But most often Paul speaks of sin as a principle (we are freed from the bondage of sin and death). This is also seen in the Old Testament as in Genesis Cain is warned that if he does what is wrong sin is crouching at his door, and it desires to have him, but he must rule over it.

Perhaps in our context James’ explanation should be in view. We are tempted when we are enticed by our own lusts (ἐπιθυμία, or desires). When lust has conceived it gives birth to sin, that is, when we give in to temptation and act on the desires of the flesh sin is accomplished, bringing forth death.

 

I agree that what makes an act sinful is that it violates God's will. I disagree that it is because it violates God's covenant (I think that Paul went to great lengths to demonstrate sin apart from God's covenant).

Eating fruit is not sinful, and Adam's sin was not "eating fruit". It was transgressing God's command not to eat of the fruit of that tree. The temptation was that the fruit was good to eat, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable to make one wise. The sin was giving in to this temptation which appealed to human desire and eating the fruit (disobeying God).

The reason I say it was not a "covenant" is that Scripture does not present God's command to Adam in covenant form. For it to be a covenant certain aspects have to be assumed.

For example, we have to assume that the command was not temporary (@TCassidy explained how he viewed the prohibition to be temporary, which would exclude it from the biblical definition of "covenant"). We have to assume that Adam would not have died (even as he had not eaten of the tree of life so as to live forever) had he not eaten the fruit.

But I'm not sure all of that is important to this conversation. While I don't believe that Jesus suffered the consequences of the "covenant of works", I do believe that Jesus experienced the consequences of sin.

 

Death.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. God's wrath is against all unrighteousness.

 

They sinned like Adam. I believe that Paul makes this point as well. Adam transgressed God's commandment. This is a transgression in the same manner as those who, being under the Law, transgress the Law.

 

No. Jesus bears our sin and experiences the consequences of sin, which is death. You are confusing death with the wrath to come (which is the second death).

Hebrews 2:9-15
9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.
11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 saying, "I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE."
13 And again, "I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM." And again, "BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME."
14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

 

Hosea 6:6-7
6 For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

You are assuming that the passage states Adam transgressed the covenant. It doesn't. The passage is speaking of Judah (not Adam) transgressing the covenant. Paul made the same link between the transgression of Adam.

Like Adam's transgression they have transgressed the covenant - they have dealt treacherously against God.

I am not much opposed to those who believe a covenant existed (that God entered into a covenant with Adam that should he not eat of the fruit he would not die) because it is a philosophical discussion (it is hypothetical as Adam did eat of the fruit and died). But the "covenant of works" is extra biblical. Both the command and the disobedience could be exactly as Scripture records (a simple command disobeyed).

What blood was shed in the making of this "covenant of works"?

 

No, again you are mistaking. Propitiation does not mean "to bear" but to appease wrath. Scripture teaches that Christ bears our sin and propitiates God's wrath - not bears God's wrath.