Propitiation

[Martin Marprelate]

Can God inflict Divine wrath upon Himself?

He did not, of course, do so. He inflicted it upon the Man Christ Jesus.
While every Person of the Trinity is involved in every action undertaken by one of the other Persons, they are not involved in the same way. The relationships among the Trinity are asymmetric, and that means that the actions are asymmetric. For example, the Father sent the Son and the Son obeyed the Father (John 10:15-18 etc.). The roles are not interchangeable.

So it is not meaningless to say that the Son Propitiated the Father. It is not the same Person who is subject and object of the verb. Nor does the fact that the Father exacted a punishment borne by the Son means the Persons of the Trinity are divided. The Son always does the things that please the Father (John 8:29), and 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him' (Isaiah 53:10).
See also John 10:17-18.
'For the Joy set out before Him' Christ endured the cross. 'Therefore God has exalted Him to the highest place.'

 

[JonC]

There is no account of such a statement in this thread.

The closest statement might be:

"“It is finished” was not speaking of God’s supposed work of punishing Jesus for each sin people committed. It is speaking of Christ’s work – His obedience even unto death – purchasing humanity from sin and death and freeing from those bonds those who are “in Him”. “It is finished” refers to His work from cradle to grave. It is done and Christ is the Last Adam through Whom we may be reconciled to God. But Christ’s death itself and alone does not effect this reconciliation. In Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting trespasses against people. This ministry of reconciliation continues." (JonC quote from post #34)​

Perhaps you are responding to a statement from another thread?

If one is to oppose the position of another, is it not proper to encapsulate with that opposition at least something of a quote by the person one opposes, or at least a reference to where that information can be found?

He is reacting to my rejection of his theory - but not Jesus as the "last Adam", as I introduced that truth in a previous discussion (my argument had been that Jesus is the "last Adam" and those who are condemned will be so because of their relationship to Christ. His was that God's righteousness is through the Law as it was by obedience to the Law Christ is righteous and was punished for our disobedience, and by the Law those who are condemned remain so).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What we have in Christ is a salvation apart from the Law.

We have a salvation apart from the law because Christ has fulfilled the law.

 

[JonC]

We have a salvation apart from the law because Christ has fulfilled the law.

We have a salvation apart from the Law because Christ was obedient to the Father, even to death and lay down His life as a guilt offering, that all who believe would live. Not because he perfectly obeyed he Mosaic Law (which pointed to His righteousness, not formed a list of tasks for Him to obey in order to win salvation) but because He fulfilled it in Himself. That is the difference between fulfilling (the Law pointed to Christ) and obeying (Christ pointed to the Law). You have it backwards.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us; that He Himself is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Jesus is the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. In other words, Christ died for all so that those of us who believe will not live for ourselves but for Christ who died and rose again on our behalf.

Christ work encompasses more than His death but looks to Christ becoming flesh, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and humbling Himself in obedience even to the Cross.

It is apart from the Law that the righteousness of God has been manifested, and this to what the Law itself and the Prophets bore testimony. We are justified as a gift by God’s grace through the redemption in Christ, Who God displayed as a propitiation in His blood through faith. The Law here is established in being fulfilled in Christ. Those who are not saved are condemned because they have not believed in Christ.

Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. We have a gospel “with feet”, one that demands action, for by His wounds we were healed. We were purchased with a price, ransomed from the bondage of sin and death.

Jesus was delivered over to the Jews, who despised Him and considered him stricken by God, by the predetermined plan of God. It was by the hands of these godless men that He was nailed to a cross and put to death. Christ gave Himself as a guilt offering, and by His stripes we are healed.

 

[agedman]

He did not, of course, do so. He inflicted it upon the Man Christ Jesus.
While every Person of the Trinity is involved in every action undertaken by one of the other Persons, they are not involved in the same way. The relationships among the Trinity are asymmetric, and that means that the actions are asymmetric. For example, the Father sent the Son and the Son obeyed the Father (John 10:15-18 etc.). The roles are not interchangeable.

So it is not meaningless to say that the Son Propitiated the Father. It is not the same Person who is subject and object of the verb. Nor does the fact that the Father exacted a punishment borne by the Son means the Persons of the Trinity are divided. The Son always does the things that please the Father (John 8:29), and 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him' (Isaiah 53:10).
See also John 10:17-18.
'For the Joy set out before Him' Christ endured the cross. 'Therefore God has exalted Him to the highest place.'

Martin, I see this view as attempting to separate the hypostatic union prior to Christ commending His Spirit to the Father that the flesh would die.

From the point of conception to that point on the cross, the hypostatic union was and now is inseparable.

Therefore, it is impossible for the Father to react violently toward the Son. For to do so would be to violate Himself.

What is seen from the first statement by the Lord that He was to go up and suffer, was the complete understanding that such was not from the Father, but from humankind.

Prior to the Garden prayers and immediately following one gets small glimpses of the Father’s care for the Son. However, as the approach of arresting officers was that resignation that determination to the Will of the Father. Without a single complaint or rebuke, all done was by the will of the Father. No wrath from the Father can be found in any statement or in any part of the events.

By the Father withdrawing that hand of protection and sustaining, Christ would suffer at the hands of humankind without the rebuke or escape earlier afforded under the Father’s protection.

It can truly be seen that Christ was not forced in any manner, but laid His own life down as a ransom.

There was no “wrath of God” at the cross as mankind might picture, but the Devine in full control of every molecular structure sustaining the very elements of nature used against Him. Where before escape and sustainability poured from the Father, such was withheld.

Some have equated the Lord suffered the wrath of God so that believers would not. That view (in my opinion) is not sustainable by Scriptures.

If such a view were validated, then a violation in the type cast from the OT is missing that aspect , that of tortuous treatment, without which such could not then be an accurate picture of the events.

Because no such treatment is evidenced, in fact just the opposite, then it places the view of God pouring wrath out upon the Son as an invalid view.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sometimes the presentation of "type" isn't consistent with what the "type" is supposed to represent.

Here is an example:

You state, "The priest and Levites acted as mediators between God and Israel and as a type of Christ whose blood is being applied to Israel a type of the elect"

This is good at a certain level, but then you have to ask are all the priests believers? Are all those in Israel believers? Were all strangers, sojourners, slaves, ... believers?

If the "mixed multitude... a type of gentile elect..." then were they all believers?

The obvious answer is no.

Obviously not, or the rulers and people in Christ's day would all be part of the elect redeemed. The type you present does not fully carry the weight of the picture parameters.

However, when considering that the blood being applied was for BOTH unbelievers and believers then the consistency of the type stretches to the frame on all sides.

Therefore, even the type, that which you would show as living pictures of only the elect - the believers - is more accurately shown as all inclusive irregardless of belief.

Something does not cease to be a type simply because the reality or condition of the person for filling the office does not meet the type.

 

[The Biblicist]

I understand this is what you believe - all of those Christians throughout history who did not accept your theory were fundamentally rejecting the gospel itself. But what this shows is that, while I completely understand your position you remain in complete ignorance of mine and of the vast majority of Christians who have come before.

What we have in Christ is a salvation apart from the Law.

I understand that you imagine that I don’t understand your position, which in fact I do understand it, but the fact remains that you simply sidestep the arguments and the text provided as you usually do. That is the reality of our discussion.

 

[The Biblicist]

The idea that God could not exercise condemnation and Wrath against his son simply because his son had no personal Sin is a fundamental misunderstanding of divine justice and it is a fundamental misunderstanding of civil law. Vicarious suffering is found both in gods divine law and American jurisprudence law

 

[JonC]

I understand that you imagine that I don’t understand your position, which in fact I do understand it, but the fact remains that you simply sidestep the arguments and the text provided as you usually do. That is the reality of our discussion.

I understand that you imagine that you understand that I imagine that you don't understand my position when the fact remains that your conclusions of my understanding are in no way reflective of my understanding itself. This is the reality of our situation - you want me to say I believe what you imagine I believe but when I tell you your imagination of my belief is not what I believe you foolishly assert a belief and pretend it is mine.

I am telling you that you have misrepresented what I believe. Either this is because you misunderstand my view or because you are a dishonest man. But you have no room to pretend you know my belief better than I.

 

[The Biblicist]

We have a salvation apart from the Law because Christ was obedient to the Father, even to death and lay down His life as a guilt offering, that all who believe would live. Not because he perfectly obeyed he Mosaic Law (which pointed to His righteousness, not formed a list of tasks for Him to obey in order to win salvation) but because He fulfilled it in Himself. That is the difference between fulfilling (the Law pointed to Christ) and obeying (Christ pointed to the Law). You have it backwards.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us; that He Himself is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Jesus is the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. In other words, Christ died for all so that those of us who believe will not live for ourselves but for Christ who died and rose again on our behalf.

Christ work encompasses more than His death but looks to Christ becoming flesh, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and humbling Himself in obedience even to the Cross.

It is apart from the Law that the righteousness of God has been manifested, and this to what the Law itself and the Prophets bore testimony. We are justified as a gift by God’s grace through the redemption in Christ, Who God displayed as a propitiation in His blood through faith. The Law here is established in being fulfilled in Christ. Those who are not saved are condemned because they have not believed in Christ.

Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. We have a gospel “with feet”, one that demands action, for by His wounds we were healed. We were purchased with a price, ransomed from the bondage of sin and death.

Jesus was delivered over to the Jews, who despised Him and considered him stricken by God, by the predetermined plan of God. It was by the hands of these godless men that He was nailed to a cross and put to death. Christ gave Himself as a guilt offering, and by His stripes we are healed.

First, You misunderstand the fundamental nature of God’s law even though Christ spells it out more than once in clear explicit terms. Paul says the law is spiritual, meaning it is a fundamental principle applicable to the heart rather than a list of do’s and don’ts. As long is you perceive God’s laws to be a list of do’s and don’ts you will never be able to successfully discuss this subject or understand the Righteousness of God

 

[JonC]

First, You misunderstand the fundamental nature of God’s law even though Christ spells it out more than once in clear explicit terms. Paul says the law is spiritual, meaning it is a fundamental principle applicable to the heart rather than a list of do’s and don’ts. As long is you perceive God’s laws to be a list of do’s and don’ts you will never be able to successfully discuss this subject or understand the Righteousness of God

I told you what I reject of your view. I spelled out my view.

Instead of arguing the negative of your position as something I hold, just argue against what I have told you is my position. It ain't rocket science and you don't need to be so inventive as I just told you what I believe (in my reply to @Martin Marprelate ).

 

[JonC]

I understand that you imagine that I don’t understand your position, which in fact I do understand it, but the fact remains that you simply sidestep the arguments and the text provided as you usually do. That is the reality of our discussion.

This is what I believe, and what you have ignored:

I believe that we have a salvation that is apart from the Law because of Christ’s obedience to the Father, even to death, and His laying down his own life as a guilt offering. This righteous is not of the Law (not because Christ perfectly obeyed the Law) but because the Law and the prophets were witnesses to Christ (Christ came to fulfill the Law).

I believe that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us; that He Himself is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. I believe Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. In other words, I believe that Jesus died for all so that those of us who believe will not live for ourselves but for Him, for Christ who died and rose again on our behalf.

I believe that Christ’s work encompasses more than His death and includes the Word becoming flesh, God becoming man, in the likeness of sinful and corruptible flesh, and humbling Himself in obedience even to the Cross.

I believe that we are justified as a gift by God’s grace through the redemption in Christ, who God displayed a propitiation in His blood through faith. The Law is established in being fulfilled in Christ. Those who are not saved are condemned because they have not believed in Christ.

I believe that Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. We have a gospel that demands action for by His wounds we are healed. We were purchased with a price, ransomed from the bondage of sin and death. We are God’s workmanship created In Christ for God works prepared beforehand.

I believe that Jesus was delivered over to the Jews, who despised Him and considered Him stricken by God, by the predetermined plan of God. It was by the hands of these godless men that Christ suffered, was nailed to a cross, and put to death. Christ gave Himself as a guilt offering and by His stripes we are healed.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin, I see this view as attempting to separate the hypostatic union prior to Christ commending His Spirit to the Father that the flesh would die.

From the point of conception to that point on the cross, the hypostatic union was and now is inseparable.

Therefore, it is impossible for the Father to react violently toward the Son. For to do so would be to violate Himself.

This seems to be the ancient error of modalism. God is One, but He is in three Persons. Jesus Christ was God as if He was not Man; but He was also Man as if He was not God. It was as Man that He suffered and died. God can do neither.

What is seen from the first statement by the Lord that He was to go up and suffer, was the complete understanding that such was not from the Father, but from humankind.

The key verse here is John 10:18. 'This command I have received by My Father.' You also need to consider Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise [or 'crush'] Him; He has put Him to grief' and also Acts 4:28.

Prior to the Garden prayers and immediately following one gets small glimpses of the Father’s care for the Son. However, as the approach of arresting officers was that resignation that determination to the Will of the Father. Without a single complaint or rebuke, all done was by the will of the Father. No wrath from the Father can be found in any statement or in any part of the events.

By the Father withdrawing that hand of protection and sustaining, Christ would suffer at the hands of humankind without the rebuke or escape earlier afforded under the Father’s protection.

On the cross, He was forsaken by the Father. If it is not so, why does He say it is?

It can truly be seen that Christ was not forced in any manner, but laid His own life down as a ransom.

That is absolutely true. We should never imagine that the Father inflicted upon the Son a punishment that He was unwilling to undergo. John 10:18 again.

There was no “wrath of God” at the cross as mankind might picture, but the Devine in full control of every molecular structure sustaining the very elements of nature used against Him. Where before escape and sustainability poured from the Father, such was withheld.

Some have equated the Lord suffered the wrath of God so that believers would not. That view (in my opinion) is not sustainable by Scriptures.

We need to be clear here: The Father's wrath was not against the Son, but against sin. 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are in the law, to do them' (Deuteronomy 27:28; Galatians 3:10). Mankind is under a curse because of sin, and Christ was made sin for us, and bore the curse of God. Why was Christ crucified? He might have been stoned, poisoned, beheaded, but none of these portrayed Him becoming a curse for us. 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree' (Deuteronomy 21:23; Galatians 3:13). God poured out His wrath against the Son made sin. 'For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God' (1 Peter 3:18).

If such a view were validated, then a violation in the type cast from the OT is missing that aspect , that of tortuous treatment, without which such could not then be an accurate picture of the events.

Because no such treatment is evidenced, in fact just the opposite, then it places the view of God pouring wrath out upon the Son as an invalid view.

Not quite sure what you mean here. '"Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, against the Man who is My fellow," says the LORD. "Smite the Shepherd"' (Zechariah 13:7).
'Whoever perished, being innocent?' (Job 4:7). We confidently answer, No one! So before God's wrath could fall upon Christ, the sins of His people must be transferred to Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). This was foreshadowed in Israel's Day of Atonement. 'And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, with all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat' (Leviticus 16:21). So it is written, 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquities of us all.......and He bore the sin of many' (Isaiah 53:6, 12; 1 Peter 2:24).

 

[agedman]

Something does not cease to be a type simply because the reality or condition of the person for filling the office does not meet the type.

If the type is invalidated by actuality, the either the type or the actuality is presenting that which is unreliable.

 

[thatbrian]

Colossians 2:13–14

[13] And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, [14] by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (ESV)

 

[JonC]

Colossians 2:13–14

[13] And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, [14] by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (ESV)

Galatians 3:10-14 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Romans 6:20-23 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

"Not 'it is written' but 'It is written again'".

 

[The Biblicist]

This is what I believe, and what you have ignored:

I understand you would like to imagine that I have ignored and/or misunderstood your position as carefully crafted below but the reality is not found in your use of biblical language but in your definitions of that language and interpretations of biblical texts, both which I find appalling and unbiblical.

I believe that we have a salvation that is apart from the Law because of Christ’s obedience

Here is where the word games begin. When you say, “apart from the law and a here is where the word games begin. When you say, “apart from the law” you mean something entirely different the what the Bible teaches. Salvation “apart from the law” in The biblical sense merely means it is not of our own personal obedience to the law. The Oxymoron is when you say or use the term “obedience” in reference to Christ but alienate it from the law as though “obedience” can be defined apart from the law Which is as oxymoronic as using the term “obedience” with regard to us apart from the law.
Furthermore it is self evident that you do not have even a fundamental grasp of the law. The law is spiritual or so says the apostle Paul but you defined it in carnal terms as a list of do’s and don’ts. To say it is spiritual demands it is a principle that could be applied to the heart and mind of people and that principle is repeatedly and explicitly defined as love. You don’t understand that you don’t grasp it and that is why you come up with your oxymoronic contrast between law and obedience. Jesus came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it meaning in its principal as Matthew chapter 5 is defined by Matthew chapter 7 verse 12. In other words Christ demonstrated love for the father.In principle, the righteousness of God he is the love of God and therefore in principle the law of God is the love of God, not of the letter but of the spirit that is the principal.
With regard to textual interpretation you completely misinterpret Roman 3:21-22. The text is clearly teaching that the righteousness of God is revealed in the law and in the prophets and in the life of Jesus Christ. Perhaps, if you would substitute the Word “law “with “law of love quote you could grasp what he saying because that is the biblical definition of the law in its spiritual sense as a principal. So the righteousness of God is manifested in the law Of love and it’s written form and And its prophetic form interpretive form but most completely in its incarnate form.

 

[The Biblicist]

If the type is invalidated by actuality, the either the type or the actuality is presenting that which is unreliable.

The type is external but what you are trying to do is to invalidate the type by an internal state. So following your principal the great high priest cannot be a type of Christ and less he is Christ or unless he is spiritually internally in the condition of Christ which is simply nonsense

 

[JonC]

I understand you would like to imagine that I have ignored and/or misunderstood your position as carefully crafted below but the reality is not found in your use of biblical language but in your definitions of that language and interpretations of biblical texts, both which I find appalling and unbiblical.

I see. So if one believes in Scripture but not your additional theories then they are just playing word games. Your final authority is not the Word of God but rather the context that you provide through which to interpret God’s Word. This, friend, is called “heresy”. When we look to man, and the theories of men, as if they were God Himself (or perhaps His vicar on earth) then we engage in idolatry. Lean not on your understanding, brother, but on the Word of God.

When you say, “apart from the law” you mean something entirely different the what the Bible teaches.

Not at all. When I say “apart from the Law” I mean that apart from the Law God’s righteousness has been made manifest, the Law and prophets bearing witness. You are confused.

The Oxymoron is when you say or use the term “obedience” in reference to Christ but alienate it from the law as though “obedience” can be defined apart from the law Which is as oxymoronic as using the term “obedience” with regard to us apart from the law.

I didn’t alienate anything. That, again, was Scripture apart from the extra-biblical context you have superimposed upon God’s Word. The Logos became flesh, took upon Himself the curse for us, was found in the likeness of sinful flesh. Christ was obedient even to death on a Cross.

Furthermore it is self evident that you do not have even a fundamental grasp of the law. The law is spiritual or so says the apostle Paul but you defined it in carnal terms as a list of do’s and don’ts. To say it is spiritual demands it is a principle that could be applied to the heart and mind of people and that principle is repeatedly and explicitly defined as love.

So, you are saying that apart from the principle of love the righteousness of God has been made manifest???? It appears that it is you, friend, who have absolutely no concept of the Law or its relationship to the righteousness of God.

As we move forward please try not to assume you know my position. You are only reacting to parts of your theories that I have rejected as unfounded and external to the biblical narrative. What you see as implied throughout God's Word is instead inserted by your own mind. If you allowed Scripture to define itself you would hold, I believe, a very different idea of the Atonement. As a friend once told me, it is not "it is written" but "it is written again".

 

[agedman]

The type is external but what you are trying to do is to invalidate the type by an internal state. So following your principal the great high priest cannot be a type of Christ and less he is Christ or unless he is spiritually internally in the condition of Christ which is simply nonsense

Not certain what the contention over internal/external is coming from, but since it has been brought up, perhaps this will help.

Do you remember that even the high priest had to offer for himself and his family first? Of course you do.

At that point, being washed and cleansed, how then did not the high priest represent Christ both as the internal and external?

For was not the robe hemmed with bells and a rope tied to the ankle lest God see some impurity of the heart and strike the priest dead?

Therefore, the internal was certainly a factor of importance to the type as well as the external visual aspects.

There is no picture representing accurately that the high priest offered blood for sin without first himself being cleansed. The painting was not external to the canvas, but soaked into the very fabric of the weave and so locked into the whole as when even covered over by excess (such as Samuel's sons) it remained discernible.

What of Christ, did He need such cleansing first?

No, He was BOTH the high priest and the sacrifice. He had both the internal and external values of both items. He needed no cleansing because He carried the cleansing as part of Him.

The type were basically pictures of the assured hope of the promise pictured in what was yet unseen.

That is, just as we look back at the crucifixion, the type in the Jewish view was that of a promise yet to be fulfilled.

Both OT and NT believers have that basic assurance of all hoped based on the evidences of what is yet to come.