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

[The Archangel]

I am not doubting that you found several resources that state "propitiation" means bearing wrath because we are not at the point where I would call into question your integrity. But what resources?

Here are a few that define propitiation as I've offered (Webster's Dictionary,A Concise Dictionary of the Holy Bible, Vocabulary.com, and Google Dictionary, Albert Barnes notes on the Bible).

To appease, to atone, to turn away wrath

win or regain the favor of (a god, spirit, or person) by doing something that pleases them.

to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of

Propitiation is an action meant to regain someone's favor or make up for something you did wrong. You might offer your mom a plate of chocolate chip cookies in propitiation for killing all her houseplants while she was away.

The proper meaning of the word is that of reconciling, appeasing, turning away anger, rendering propitious or favorable.

So again, what are the many resources you are citing that define "propitiation" as "bearing wrath"?

Here are a representative few:

The Greek terms (the verb hilaskomai, “to make propitiation” and the noun hilasmos, “a sacrifice of propitiation”) used in these passages have the sense of “a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God — and thereby makes God propitious (or favorable) toward us.” This is the consistent meaning of these words outside the Bible where they were well understood in reference to pagan Greek religions. These verses simply mean that Jesus bore the wrath of God against sin.

Wayne A.; Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Making Sense of Series) (p. 575). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.​

The following portion is from the notes of the ESV Study Bible. Normally I wouldn't quote a simple study Bible, but these notes were written by Dr. Tom Schreiner who is one of the foremost New Testament scholars in the world. His epic commentary on Romans goes into greater detail, but this sample from the ESV Study Bible is a worthy condensing of his larger work.

Rom. 3:25 Jesus’ blood “propitiated” or satisfied God’s wrath (1:18), so that his holiness was not compromised in forgiving sinners. Some scholars have argued that the word propitiation should be translated expiation(the wiping away of sin), but the word cannot be restricted to the wiping away of sins as it also refers to the satisfaction or appeasement of God’s wrath, turning it to favor (cf. note on John 18:11). God’s righteous anger needed to be appeased before sin could be forgiven, and God in his love sent his Son (who offered himself willingly) to satisfy God’s holy anger against sin. In this way God demonstrated his righteousness, which here refers particularly to his holiness and justice. God’s justice was called into question because in his patience he had overlooked former sins. In other words, how could God as the utterly Holy One tolerate human sin without inflicting full punishment on human beings immediately? Paul’s answer is that God looked forward to the cross of Christ where the full payment for the guilt of sin would be made, where Christ would die in the place of sinners. In the OT, propitiation (or the complete satisfaction of the wrath of God) is symbolically foreshadowed in several incidents: e.g., Ex. 32:11–14; Num. 25:8, 11; Josh. 7:25–26.​

Notice, also, Jesus' own words in John 18:

So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:11 ESV)
​

The imagery is unmistakable--it is a cup of wrath. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and, later, Revelation all have this imagery. Jesus Himself attests that what His is going to do on the cross is precisely to bear the Father's wrath. Paul's use of "Propitiation" in Romans and John's use of it in his epistles are in perfect harmony with Jesus' own thoughts.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Here are a representative few:

The Greek terms (the verb hilaskomai, “to make propitiation” and the noun hilasmos, “a sacrifice of propitiation”) used in these passages have the sense of “a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God — and thereby makes God propitious (or favorable) toward us.” This is the consistent meaning of these words outside the Bible where they were well understood in reference to pagan Greek religions. These verses simply mean that Jesus bore the wrath of God against sin.

Wayne A.; Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Making Sense of Series) (p. 575). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.​

The following portion is from the notes of the ESV Study Bible. Normally I wouldn't quote a simple study Bible, but these notes were written by Dr. Tom Schreiner who is one of the foremost New Testament scholars in the world. His epic commentary on Romans goes into greater detail, but this sample from the ESV Study Bible is a worthy condensing of his larger work.

Rom. 3:25 Jesus’ blood “propitiated” or satisfied God’s wrath (1:18), so that his holiness was not compromised in forgiving sinners. Some scholars have argued that the word propitiation should be translated expiation(the wiping away of sin), but the word cannot be restricted to the wiping away of sins as it also refers to the satisfaction or appeasement of God’s wrath, turning it to favor (cf. note on John 18:11). God’s righteous anger needed to be appeased before sin could be forgiven, and God in his love sent his Son (who offered himself willingly) to satisfy God’s holy anger against sin. In this way God demonstrated his righteousness, which here refers particularly to his holiness and justice. God’s justice was called into question because in his patience he had overlooked former sins. In other words, how could God as the utterly Holy One tolerate human sin without inflicting full punishment on human beings immediately? Paul’s answer is that God looked forward to the cross of Christ where the full payment for the guilt of sin would be made, where Christ would die in the place of sinners. In the OT, propitiation (or the complete satisfaction of the wrath of God) is symbolically foreshadowed in several incidents: e.g., Ex. 32:11–14; Num. 25:8, 11; Josh. 7:25–26.​

Notice, also, Jesus' own words in John 18:

So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:11 ESV)
​

The imagery is unmistakable--it is a cup of wrath. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and, later, Revelation all have this imagery. Jesus Himself attests that what His is going to do on the cross is precisely to bear the Father's wrath. Paul's use of "Propitiation" in Romans and John's use of it in his epistles are in perfect harmony with Jesus' own thoughts.

The Archangel

In your own response the word "propitiation" does not mean to bear God's wrath. In the verse it means to appease God's wrath. Wayne Grudem believes that this was done by Christ experiencing God's wrath.

 

[HankD]

I have never heard a satisfactory response to Jesus cry from the cross - My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? - to explain that He was not forsaken in the wrath of the Father.

Sometimes several sentences even paragraphs to explain it away.

It comes down to this question - Did Jesus lie? Whether His own words or mouthing the words of the Psalmist, did Jesus Lie?

 

[The Archangel]

In your own response the word "propitiation" does not mean to bear God's wrath. In the verse it means to appease God's wrath. Wayne Grudem believes that this was done by Christ experiencing God's wrath.

Seriously?! It most certainly does. How many more resources must I post? I'm afraid if I posted my entire library (which is, extraordinarily extensive) you still wouldn't see it.

(ETA: What the word means and how it is used both define meaning, not necessarily one--meaning or usage. The New Testament usage is clearly in the camp of bearing God's wrath. Now, you, like others, can deny certain things, but it is hard to deny the meaning and usage of the word.)

Denying original sin is one thing, but to, essentially, deny the heart of the atonement itself... I'm just shaking my head here.

ETA: A further Grudem quote:

Romans 3: 5 tells us that God put forward Christ as a “propitiation” (NASB) a word that means “a sacrifice that bears God’s wrath to the end and in so doing changes God’s wrath toward us into favor.”

Grudem, Wayne A.; Grudem, Wayne A.. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Making Sense of Series) (p. 575). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
​

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

I have never heard a satisfactory response to Jesus cry from the cross - My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? - to explain that He was not forsaken in the wrath of the Father.

Sometimes several sentences even paragraphs to explain it away.

It comes down to this question - Did Jesus lie? Whether His own words or mouthing the words of the Psalmist, did Jesus Lie?

Satisfactory is subjective.

Another explanation which can be biblically supported is that Jesus's cry concerned the Father not delivering him from suffering the Cross. Perhaps Psalm 22 as a whole was foretelling the Cross.

 

[JonC]

Seriously?! It most certainly does. How many more resources must I post? I'm afraid if I posted my entire library (which is, extraordinarily extensive) you still wouldn't see it.

(ETA: What the word means and how it is used both define meaning, not necessarily one--meaning or usage. The New Testament usage is clearly in the camp of bearing God's wrath. Now, you, like others, can deny certain things, but it is hard to deny the meaning and usage of the word.)

Denying original sin is one thing, but to, essentially, deny the heart of the atonement itself... I'm just shaking my head here.

The Archangel

You provided commentary stating what a couple of people believed concerning HOW Jesus propitiated. I could just as easily provide F.F. Bruce, who interprets the word as "expiate". But why pit commentary against commentary when we are talking about the DEFINITION?

 

[HankD]

Satisfactory is subjective.

Another explanation which can be biblically supported is that Jesus's cry concerned the Father not delivering him from suffering the Cross. Perhaps Psalm 22 as a whole was foretelling the Cross.

Jesus told the truth - that's why He doubled down on what He said by quoting scripture.

It's a difficult concept because the propitiation for the wrath of God towards sin is difficult for us to embrace.

 

[HankD]

I guess we have to choose (as usual).

 

[JonC]

Jesus told the truth - that's why He doubled down on what He said by quoting scripture.

It's a difficult concept because the propitiation for the wrath of God towards sin is difficult for us to embrace.

I agree that people want to ignore wrath. I'm not sure (I can't remember) why FF Bruce rejected "propitiation" in favor of "expiation", but I don't think it was to avoid wrath.

When we look at the Cross I believe it is impossible to miss the wrath of God. I just do not believe this was inflicted on Christ (partly because it nullifies some passages and our assurance in Christ, but mostly because it is a theory not actually stated in Scripture).

Deja vu all over again.....huh..

 

[HankD]

I agree that people want to ignore wrath. I'm not sure (I can't remember) why FF Bruce rejected "propitiation" in favor of "expiation", but I don't think it was to avoid wrath.

When we look at the Cross I believe it is impossible to miss the wrath of God. I just do not believe this was inflicted on Christ (partly because it nullifies some passages and our assurance in Christ, but mostly because it is a theory not actually stated in Scripture).

Deja vu all over again.....huh..

yes, a million years from now (or however we will measure "time") we will laugh at our misunderstandings of the word and each other.

 

[The Archangel]

You provided commentary stating what a couple of people believed concerning HOW Jesus propitiated. I could just as easily provide F.F. Bruce, who interprets the word as "expiate". But why pit commentary against commentary when we are talking about the DEFINITION?

Because the first rule of context is always that usage determines meaning. In other words, a lexical definition is helpful, but it is not the final word on meaning. How the author uses a word matters as much (or more) in determining the meaning of the word.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

yes, a million years from now (or however we will measure "time") we will laugh at our misunderstandings of the word and each other.

You do know that if I go before you I'm going to spread rumors that you're a raving liberal Democrat, right?
(not enough to get you kicked out, just enough to get Peter to give you a sideways glance now and then)

 

[thatbrian]

Satisfactory is subjective.

Another explanation which can be biblically supported is that Jesus's cry concerned the Father not delivering him from suffering the Cross. Perhaps Psalm 22 as a whole was foretelling the Cross.

Jesus was not afraid of pain or death. Many martyrs have bravely gone to painful deaths without a whimper. What He was tormented over was the Father's turning His face from Him. This was a the pain of an infinite relation being broken. Think marital divorce times infinity. That was the agony of the cross. It was not the nails.

 

[thatbrian]

You do know that if I go before you I'm going to spread rumors that you're a raving liberal Democrat, right?
(not enough to get you kicked out, just enough to get Peter to give you a sideways glance now and then)

What?! Hank isn't a Liberal Democrat???

 

[JonC]

Because the first rule of context is always that usage determines meaning. In other words, a lexical definition is helpful, but it is not the final word on meaning. How the author uses a word matters as much (or more) in determining the meaning of the word.

The Archangel

Yes, context dictates interpretation. But what you are doing is interpreting through a theological lens. Where did you study hermeneutics?

 

[HankD]

You do know that if I go before you I'm going to spread rumors that you're a raving liberal Democrat, right?
(not enough to get you kicked out, just enough to get Peter to give you a sideways glance now and then)

Thank you for that, I'll do the same for you if vice versa

 

[HankD]

What?! Hank isn't a Liberal Democrat???

I used to be a Yellow Dog Democrat

 

[thatbrian]

I used to be a Yellow Dog Democrat

Which color are you now?

 

[JonC]

Jesus was not afraid of pain or death. Many martyrs have bravely gone to painful deaths without a whimper. What He was tormented over was the Father's turning His face from Him. This was a the pain of an infinite relation being broken. Think marital divorce times infinity. That was the agony of the cross. It was not the nails.

This is what I mean by spiritualizing.

 

[JonC]

What?! Hank isn't a Liberal Democrat???

I heard he's a yellow dog one