Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ? 2

[agedman]

The answer, very briefly, is because Christ is the propitiation for our sins. He has drunk the cup of God's wrath that we would otherwise have to drink. Part of that cup is separation from God. It is precisely because Christ was forsaken by the Father for those hours upon the cross that God promises, "I will never leave you nor forsake you."

I hope to work that out in more detail as I have time, on the new thread I have opened.

Oh, Martin, do you not see that Christ was the propitiation, and to propitiate carries no judgement or wrath for the very appeasement of propitiation satisfies any wrath.

This is in part why the OT sacrifices were not treated with wrath, but penned up under observation, inspected for inpurity and injury, and found without fault dealt with humanely.

It is precisely that Christ was not abandoned that the promises of the Father are faithful and true.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Oh, Martin, do you not see that Christ was the propitiation, and to propitiate carries no judgement or wrath for the very appeasement of propitiation satisfies any wrath.

This is in part why the OT sacrifices were not treated with wrath, but penned up under observation, inspected for inpurity and injury, and found without fault dealt with humanely.

It is precisely that Christ was not abandoned that the promises of the Father are faithful and true.

Christ is indeed the propitiation for our sins. The death of bulls and goats could never take away sins (Hebrews 10:4) and if there were any other way for our Lord to make propitiation , would the Father have allowed Him to be scourged and nailed to a cross according to God's 'purpose determined beforehand to be done' (Acts 4:28)? As I pointed out before, the word hilasmos concentrates upon the action of propitiation rather than on its effects (Greek noun ending in -mos). Christ propitiated the wrath of the Father against sin by taking upon Himself the penalty due to guilty sinners (Isaiah 53:5). Part of that penalty is separation from God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

'By Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses' (Acts 13:39).

 

[kyredneck]

So you sort of think he's suffered as a victim of a hate crime?

Precisely!

25 But this cometh to pass, that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. Jn 15

 

[The Archangel]

The subject of the OP is whether 1 John demands the Theory of Penal Substitution (it is a continuation of another thread). What has been used repeatedly is the claim that the word translated “expiation”, “atonement”, or “propitiation” should be translated as “propitiation” with the meaning of “bearing wrath” and therefore demanding the Theory of Penal Substitution correct.

On post# 40 Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history? you reject the common definition of “propitiation” to be an appeasement of wrath and insist that it means “to bear the wrath of God”. This is contradicts many of our sources.

For example, in his commentary on Romans Schreiner explains Romans 2:25 as “God himself took the initiative to satisfy and appease his own wrath”, and “the appeasement of God’s wrath is accomplished through the blood of his Son”. Other sources you contradict (that share your theology) include John Piper, F.F. Bruce, and D.A. Carson.

The reason that I stay on this topic (on what you considered to be an “infantile obsession”) regarding how accurately we handle the biblical text itself is because I find it utmost important. I understand, however, that you do not. It is for this reason I have decided not to engage most of your replies to my post. There are certain presuppositions that must be met before I am willing to enter into arguments on the common ground of Christian discourse. One of these is sola scriptura (and by this I mean founding our theology on the text of Scripture itself rather than reading into that text systematically developed theories).

When people insist on interpreting the biblical text through their own theologies, theories, and presuppositions then there is no room for discussion. If one argues that “propitiation” means “bearing wrath” then they cannot view the Theory of Penal Substitution within its proper context (as a product of systematic theology). This is a weakness of “paraphrased” translations of Scripture. You may disagree, but it really does matter what Scripture states. The text is that important, and while you are wrong in viewing such respect for the text of Scripture as "infantile" when faced with your theology, you are right that faithfulness to that text is an obsession of mine. Perhaps it is an obsession that may serve you well also.

I'm really starting to doubt whether or not you can even read my posts without antagonism against me causing you to read them wrongly and then misrepresent what I've said. Also, I've noticed that you seem to feel completely at liberty to remove things in my posts which you may find offensive but you also feel completely at liberty to insult me in your posts. You say "I understand, however, that you do not. [handle the Bible accurately]. You simply are a hypocrite.

Now... You are misrepresenting what I said. I said--quite clearly--that you had an "infantile obsession with one occurrence of one word" and you then suggest that I'm saying you talking about this topic is an "infantile obsession." You are wrong an you have reported my words inaccurately--and I suspect you intended to do so. Furthermore, you did not engage in ANY of the substance of the previous post, which is what happens with you and more people than me have noticed and called you on it--to no avail. Then you preposterously say:

There are certain presuppositions that must be met before I am willing to enter into arguments on the common ground of Christian discourse. One of these is sola scriptura (and by this I mean founding our theology on the text of Scripture itself rather than reading into that text systematically developed theories).

Of course this street does go both ways. What I am arguing--and what you're pompously dismissing--is that meaning of words are not determined by one single occurrence. You are stuck--fatally, it would seem--in the lexical fallacy. And, you are demanding that people come to your understanding of things before any "engagement" is given by you--which is ludicrous. Play God much?

As for the rest of your drivel, it is nothing more than obfuscation, and that is all. You are engaged in one big Red Herring fallacy. You have not--and apparently will not--deal with substance of arguments, especially if and when they call your interpretation and theology into question.

So, again, I will ask: Would you look a the word "Firstborn," for example and insist that Jesus was the first created being (similar to the Arians and Jehovah's witnesses)? Of course not. To rightly discern the meaning, you would need to look at the lexical definition, the context of the usage, any historical understanding of what the word meant and/or what it has been used for, and how the Bible uses the word in other passages and contexts.

Or what about the "whole world" passages. Would you assume, then, Universal Salvation? If you don't inform your understanding of the passage or the words from other texts of scripture, you yourself would have to argue for Universal Salvation. But, you don't. And why not? Because you know there are other passages that describe sheep and goats. You have read other passages that argue against Universal Salvation and so those passages are brought to bear on the the passages that my suggest--at first glance--universalism. So, don't give me this bunk about how @JonC the great and mighty doesn't bring his own theology to the table in determining meaning. In fact, your rejecting of "Propitiation" in favor of "Expiation" is--like CH Dodd--a perfect example of such.

Now, I'm sure that if you respond, we'll get some self-aggrandizing lecture about how superior you are to everyone else, but especially me. I'm sure you'll slander and misrepresent. And It's likely you won't even deal with the questions above. But.... I guess that's just how you have to roll...

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Some have misunderstood what I am saying. I am insisting that we have to be faithful to God's Word, to the text of Scripture.

We all have theologies or interpretations derived from Scripture, but it is wrong to read that back into the text.

 

[HankD]

So 100 plus posts since Friday and this is just another eruption of the PS debate.

Another subject which has no solution.

Early church writers claimed PS as has been documented. So if it's a theory its an old one.

Isaiah 53 is ignored or discounted as the proof text and in effect Jesus did not mean what He said - "why hast thou forsaken me".

So it turns into another ping-pong debate:

It is, It isn't, It is, it isn't, It is it isn't... etc, ad nauseum...

 

[JonC]

So 100 plus posts since Friday and this is just another eruption of the PS debate.

Another subject which has no solution.

Early church writers claimed PS as has been documented. So if it's a theory its an old one.

Isaiah 53 is ignored or discounted as the proof text and in effect Jesus did not mean what He said - "why hast thou forsaken me".

So it turns into another ping-pong debate:

It is, It isn't, It is, it isn't, It is it isn't... etc, ad nauseum...

Yea.....we have 2 going on and guess what? I didn't start either

The Theory is centuries old. The biblical doctrine much longer. I suspect the debate is here to stay.

 

[HankD]

Yea.....we have 2 going on and guess what? I didn't start either

The Theory is centuries old. The biblical doctrine much longer. I suspect the debate is here to stay.

Indeed.

 

[Darrell C]

I don't believe the priests were punishing the animals (not do I believe Tyson is punishing its chickens) much less punishing them with man's punishment. Now, if you want to argue for Aquinas' definition of "satisfaction punishment" then I'd be closer to agree.

I only want to discuss what is actually written, lol.

Not too terribly interested in Aquinas' view.


God bless.

 

[agedman]

Christ is indeed the propitiation for our sins. The death of bulls and goats could never take away sins (Hebrews 10:4) and if there were any other way for our Lord to make propitiation , would the Father have allowed Him to be scourged and nailed to a cross according to God's 'purpose determined beforehand to be done' (Acts 4:28)? As I pointed out before, the word hilasmos concentrates upon the action of propitiation rather than on its effects (Greek noun ending in -mos). Christ propitiated the wrath of the Father against sin by taking upon Himself the penalty due to guilty sinners (Isaiah 53:5). Part of that penalty is separation from God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

'By Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses' (Acts 13:39).

Perhaps, it is that the wrath God has being, appeased, expiate, not in the absorbing of the Wrath, as some seem to portray, rather making what was once abhorrent (sinful humankind), now favorable.

To do so did not mean wrath had to be poured out or drained (as some might consider a draining of water out of a pot, tub, bucket, swamp, ... For to have that picture, it presents that that which is poured out is poured into, and merely a transfer has taken place, but not resolve, so in the matter of wrath, the wrath remains wrath just as unresolved and transferred from one person of the trinity to another.

Where some embrace that a the process such as needing the wrath poured out upon the Son is obliged, I take the action as one who is appeased by amends made that transforms wrath into joy. That is, the Wrath was not something to pour out but transformed into what was favaorable. Those who believe are transformed or made adequate 2 Corinthians 3 says:

4Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 5Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.​

When the Scriptures state in Hebrews 9:

22And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.​

We more often rightfully direct this toward the humans, yet it may also be seen in the advocacy of the Saviour.

The shed blood was the propitiation allowing for the cleansing and forgiveness.

In other words, the wrath was not appeased by being poured out upon Christ, but by the forgiveness and cleansing of the humankind’s sin, and therefore the propitiation was not absorbing wrath, but that catalyst which caused wrath to turn to joy.

Too often perhaps the wrath is pictured as having elemental form rather then attitudeinal that can be adjusted. Is that not found in the ability of even humans?

Some take this to be limited to only those given in redemption, others see it all encompassing allowing the eternal to be determined solely upon the Soveriegn determination of who will believe.

This is also why God could at one place be seen as incapable of looking upon sin, yet in another looking upon sin. For in the Scriptures it says in Revelation 3:

And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The propitiation extended over all creation allows God to “rain upon just and unjust” with no favoritism, yet be the just and justifier.​

Where you would see the store of wrath poured out, I see the wrath aswaged because the blood “cleanses us from all unrighteousness” The “Good News Translation” (which is not on my favorite list of where to get quotes) does rightly put John 2:2 this way:

And Christ himself is the means by which our sins are forgiven, and not our sins only, but also the sins of everyone.​

If sins are forgiven, there remains no wrath to be poured out, for God has been reconciled and it awaits for humankind to be reconciled to God. Hence Paul’s message of reconciliation and ambassadorship.

This also resolves the issue of why wrath is not assuaged for those who are not given to believe. For had the wrath been pour out as some portray, there would remain no more wrath, but such is not valid for certain wrath remains upon those who do not believe. For the unbeliever “dies in their sins” and no unforgiveness can be extended because of unbelief.

There are so many other Scripture issues that are conflicted when wrath is poured out that are found resolved if wrath is made into joy and the thread is not about such.

I gave these as examples, in hope to stir your thoughts.

I wish I didn’t think i needed to write such lengthy posts.

At times I repeat myself because I don’t remember what I wrote!

 

[JonC]

I only want to discuss what is actually written, lol.

Not too terribly interested in Aquinas' view.


God bless.

Then what is written does not describe the priests as punishing the sacrificial animals. It describes the priests as making an offering as a propitiation for the sins of Israel (not in that God visits His wrath on the sheep, goats, and bulls, but that they are a "soothing aroma").

I believe that this is the sense in which we should deal with Christ offering Himself as a "guilt offering". Not God clearing His ledgers of sin debts, but God forgiving men based on the blood of Christ offered once and for all.

 

[agedman]

There are two words translate into English as expiation and propitiation. They are "hilastērion" and "hilasmos“.

The first Greek word used by Paul in his writings refers to the furniture and the place.

The second refers to that which was done at the place or as to the blood applied at the place.

The Greeks used the two words (extra biblical reference not necessary to include) in terms of averting anger, or in acquiring and curing the gods favor.

In the Scriptures, the word propitiation, if held to the original definitions used by the Greeks, would be found out of step with the balance of the account(s) statements in Scripture.

When John uses propitiation, it is shaded in all the blood sacrifices and the demands of purity made upon such sacrifices that took place yearly from the times of Aaron.

When Paul uses the term it carries the ritual, the priest, the garments, the purity of those involved, the furniture, and the intention of all that pertained to the ritual.

So there is far more to the word propitiation then can be placed into English by a single word such as atonement.

As one attends to the crucifixion, it is necessary not to add and embellish beyond what the prophecies, the types, the statements by Christ and other matters found in the Scriptures.

This the Greeks did by assuming the gods were angry, manipulative, and flawed. But we have no such God and Savior.

 

[Darrell C]

Then what is written does not describe the priests as punishing the sacrificial animals. It describes the priests as making an offering as a propitiation for the sins of Israel (not in that God visits His wrath on the sheep, goats, and bulls, but that they are a "soothing aroma").

That is not really relevant, because Christ was basically tortured. This was in His flesh, though.

Consider:

Isaiah 53
King James Version (KJV)


4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.


These are not speaking of His death, but that which He suffered. So we cannot discount His being brutalized from the Work of the Cross.

All of this is stating that He took upon Himself that which we deserved. He endured this in the physical, but, I think it gives insight to the fate of the wicked in Hell. The implication being that the penalty for sin will be severe. This is why the Writer of Hebrews speaks of those rejecting Christ deserving a far more severe punishment than those who rejected Moses and the Covenant of Law:


Hebrews 10:28-29
King James Version (KJV)

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

I believe that this is the sense in which we should deal with Christ offering Himself as a "guilt offering".

We must take into account all that Scripture states is relevant, and His suffering in the flesh is, I believe, relevant.

Not God clearing His ledgers of sin debts, but God forgiving men based on the blood of Christ offered once and for all.

We agree completely on that, though I still take the position that, like as the sacrifices you are comparing His to were, His was a vicarious death in our stead.


God bless.

 

[agedman]

Then what is written does not describe the priests as punishing the sacrificial animals. It describes the priests as making an offering as a propitiation for the sins of Israel (not in that God visits His wrath on the sheep, goats, and bulls, but that they are a "soothing aroma").

I believe that this is the sense in which we should deal with Christ offering Himself as a "guilt offering". Not God clearing His ledgers of sin debts, but God forgiving men based on the blood of Christ offered once and for all.

This is as I was poorly attempting to present in my response (above) to Martin.

And as I was showing by giving a brief history and definition alignment.

 

[agedman]

That is not really relevant, because Christ was basically tortured. This was in His flesh, though.

Consider:

Isaiah 53
King James Version (KJV)


4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.


These are not speaking of His death, but that which He suffered. So we cannot discount His being brutalized from the Work of the Cross.

All of this is stating that He took upon Himself that which we deserved. He endured this in the physical, but, I think it gives insight to the fate of the wicked in Hell. The implication being that the penalty for sin will be severe. This is why the Writer of Hebrews speaks of those rejecting Christ deserving a far more severe punishment than those who rejected Moses and the Covenant of Law:


Hebrews 10:28-29
King James Version (KJV)

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?





We must take into account all that Scripture states is relevant, and His suffering in the flesh is, I believe, relevant.




We agree completely on that, though I still take the position that, like as the sacrifices you are comparing His to were, His was a vicarious death in our stead.


God bless.

But who did the torturing and abusing? God or man?

At what point did the torturers consider the Christ as the sacrificial lamb?

 

[Darrell C]

But who did the torturing and abusing? God or man?

Men physically brutalized (and I think torture is an acceptable term for what He went through) Christ, but, we still have to remember that God is the One Who decided to go through this. In that sense God gives this "cup" to Christ, but, I don't think we look at it as "God tortured and murdered Christ."

That falls squarely on man, both in the literal sense, but also in the sense that it is each of our sins that demanded the Redemptive Plan GOd effected.

At what point did the torturers consider the Christ as the sacrificial lamb?

Never.

No man understood the Cross until this was revealed to them by the Promised Spirit, the Comforter.

AS I have said before, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery not revealed to men, the sons of men, or Saints in generations and Ages past.

It is now revealed (in Paul's day) to His Apostles and Prophets.


God bless.

 

[agedman]

Men physically brutalized (and I think torture is an acceptable term for what He went through) Christ, but, we still have to remember that God is the One Who decided to go through this. In that sense God gives this "cup" to Christ, but, I don't think we look at it as "God tortured and murdered Christ."

That falls squarely on man, both in the literal sense, but also in the sense that it is each of our sins that demanded the Redemptive Plan GOd effected.




Never.

No man understood the Cross until this was revealed to them by the Promised Spirit, the Comforter.

AS I have said before, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery not revealed to men, the sons of men, or Saints in generations and Ages past.

It is now revealed (in Paul's day) to His Apostles and Prophets.


God bless.

I agree that it was the cup given to Christ that He would undergo the brutality due to man by that very man. It is (by extension) to all nations in that nationalities other then Jews witnessed the crucifixion.

AS such, it was never God brutalizing a portion of the trinity.

We will continue to disagree as to the "mystery" being the gospel. But that is for another thread.

 

[The Archangel]

Then what is written does not describe the priests as punishing the sacrificial animals.

I think it would be understood that slitting their throats would be, well, punative. Right?

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

I think it would be understood that slitting their throats would be, well, punative. Right?

The Archangel

This depends. Generally punishment is defined as "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense." In the military we had non-punitive discipline. It sure felt like punishment, but it wasn't (or so the government says).

When it comes to "punishment" or "chastisement" we could be using the same word for different things. For example, punishment for sin (i.e., you steal a candy bar you get a whoppin) is simple punishment (in fact, it is simple retributive punishment). But punishment can also be "satisfaction punishment". Here the punishment is not for the crime committed (neither retributive nor simple punishment) but satisfies the demands against the guilty party (typically when what was rendered outweighs the value of what would have been demanded).

So we have to distinguish three things -

1. Is the sacrifice of the animal actually a punishment inflicted upon the animal? Do we punish a cow when we slaughter it? Are hunters punishing the animals they hunt?

2. If it is punishment then is it simple punishment (the animal suffers the punishment the people would have received, i.e., had they not offered the sacrifice then their throats would have been slit?

3. Or is it satisfaction punishment, i.e., the punishment is not the punishment the people would have received but in some way it has satisfied the demands against the people.

 

[agedman]

I think it would be understood that slitting their throats would be, well, punative. Right?

The Archangel

Far less and more humane then what is presented by the thinking of God dumping all his wrath from the Eden to the final judgement upon Christ.

Those of us who have been to slaughter houses know of the disposing of the blood from the animal is quick and more often done in a manner the animal does not struggle.

How much more would the priest take care that the sacrifice for atonement that has undergone days of rigorous inspection would not be marked as bruised or in pain at the moment in which the blood was taken.

The offering was that highest offered, in which was more than any other the single most important.