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

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).

 

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

 

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:

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

 

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...

 

Indeed.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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

 

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.

 

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.