Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ?

In a previous thread the following comments were made, requesting that I look again at 1 John 2:2 as demanding the Theory of Penal Substitution.

I want to do this by being faithful and honest with Scripture (not just jumping around throughout the Bible to systematically defend one theory or another). The question is whether or not 1 John demands the Theory, not the correctness of Penal Substitution Theory but God's Word.

 

1 John 1:5-10
5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

God is light. In Him there is no darkness at all. I do not understand how this verse can be taken as proof of the Theory of Penal Substitution. No one is claiming that God actually became sin, or that God looked upon Christ as if He were sin. God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

John is speaking of life in Christ. If we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin.

The point is that Christ cleanses us of all sin for in Him there is no darkness.

How can God be faithful and just while forgiving sinners? The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin. Romans 3:26 speaks of this very thing - God overlooked the sins of the past (before Christ) for the demonstration of His righteousness, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ. None of the theories deny this passage. We could look, for example (I am not advocating the theory, just offering an example), at the Satisfaction Theory which would say that Christ's "purity, innocence and righteousness, which was divine and eternal, outweighed all of the sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account."

The claim that 1 John 1:5 proves the Theory of Penal Substitution is nonsense.

 

1 John 2:1-6
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.


John continues the discussion by urging the believer not to sin. But if we do we have an Advocate with the Father, which is Jesus Christ.

He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

The debatable part of this passage is the Greek word ἱλασμός, which has been translated as propitiation, expiation, and atonement.

I believe the word should be translated "propitiation" because it looks to Christ as Mediator in order to address our sins and turn aside its consequences.

In a previous discussion on this verse, the following claim was made:

The error here is that by definition propitiation does not mean "bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin", what I have been told is assumed by many evangelicals. "Propitiation" simply means the turning aside of wrath or consequences.

Expiation, on the other hand, is the act of making amends or reparation for guilt or wrongdoing. It is taking away guilt by payment or penalty. I believe F.F. Bruce is correct in that expiation exceeds what the text is stating.

When we look at words we need to look at the context of what is written. Context, not a lexicon, drives interpretation.

Again, nothing in this text demands the Theory of Penal Substitution.

 

1 John tells us how we walk in the light:

1 John 1:7-9
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

What you are ignoring is the audience of 1 John. John is writing to Christians, those he refers to as “little children” who have an advocate in Christ Jesus. You are reading into the text your theology and taking out bits and pieces to “support” the Theory of Penal Substitution.

The audience of 1 John is right with God. It is because of this that they are to walk in the Light.

Again, John tells us how God forgives us. He forgives us and cleanses us from all unrighteousness based on the blood (the sacrifice) of Jesus Christ who is the propitiation for the sins of mankind.

The Theory of Penal Substitution is very humanistic. It is concentrated on man and man’s sin. Where Satisfaction Theory views Christ’s nature and divinity as outweighing the sin and wrath against us, and the Christus Victor motif looks to Christ overcoming the death and sin that stands against us, the Penal Substitution Theory views Christ’s divine nature as worthless except divine justice be satisfied through the punishment men deserve.

Yes, I know your theory. To my shame, I taught it at one time.

Done. 1 John simply does not demand the Theory of Penal Substitution. That is why it remains one theory among many. It is based on Scripture but depends on philosophy.

 

Yes, I mean ἱλασμός. Thanks for the correction.

So you do not think it means "propitiation" (in and of itself) but conveys a fuller theological concept of Christ making reparation for guilt by taking upon Himself the punishment for and of that guilt in terms of the Theory of Penal Substitution.

How do you justify interpreting 1 John 2:2 as representing the Theory of Penal Substitution through the text of 1 John (how is your interpretation not reading into the text)?

 

Why would the text not be word specific, or at least gain its meaning from the immediate context?

And if the meaning is independent from or an expansion of the specific word, not derived from the actual context, what makes the Theory of Penal Substitution the correct theory to apply to the text?

 

While I agree that Christ's obedience and death is all encompassing, as evidenced by vindication of the Father (the Resurrection and all things being subject to Christ) I do not see where you are deriving the Theory of Penal Substitution from the text of 1 John. It seems that instead you are trying to explain what you believe happened in the background - i.e., not expounding on Scripture but using Scripture to reinforce a theory external to the passage.

It seems that Scripture, in your commentary, is taking a back seat to theory.

 

Perhaps now would be a good time to remind everyone of the passage that we are speaking of:

1 John 2:1-14 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard.On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining. The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name's sake. I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because you know the Father. I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

 

It is not granted to me by soul liberty to add to Scripture. I'm talking strictly of 1 John and asking how, from that text, you come up with the Theory of Penal Substitution. Your reply is that you can't, and I agree. It is something that you have decided is true and all encompassing so you apply it to all Scripture.

Soul Liberty concerns things that are not specified in Scripture itself. While I agree that the Theory of Penal Substitution is not specified in Scripture, I disagree that we have the liberty to apply it (or any other theory) to Scripture itself.

Now, we could say that Scripture is absolute truth and all encompassing, and therefore apply Psalm 11 and Psalm 33 to determine that God's wrath was never upon the Righteous One. If we do that, then the Theory of Penal Substitution cannot be forced into the word "propitiation", and another reasoning must be adopted that does not deny those passages by making Christ the bearer of wrath.

But even this does not come from the text of 1 John. So John is most likely simply saying what he says, without any secret or hidden knowledge woven through his words.

 

Probably because John, like Paul, was not familiar with the theory. Hank was right. It is an all encompassing theory through which you view Scripture.

Go back and look. "Propitiation" is not the subject of that verse.

And in the future please bring something to the table. I will delete posts appealing to what you think Paul, John, or Jesus "believed" as being off topic.

 

I deny that Scripture teaches the Theory of Penal Substitution. That is probably why we call it Penal Substitution THEORY.

I do not believe anyone here has denied both penal and substitution aspects of Christ's work.

Now, please return to the topic. 1 John.