• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What is Propitiation and is it really the heart of the gospel?

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
Romans 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


I think that part of the problem here is that some people are ignoring the how and what propitiation is.
Propitiation happens at the mercy seat. It doesn’t happen just by forgiveness alone. There is an offering made at the mercy seat. The offering is the appeasement. The offering is the blood. The appeasement is an exchange of one life, Christ’s, for the sinner’s life. There is no remission of sin without the blood. So there is no appeasement (propitiation) without the death of an innocent Christ.
And praise the Lord for the victory over death by the risen Christ!
 

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
Romans 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


I think that part of the problem here is that some people are ignoring the how and what propitiation is.
Propitiation happens at the mercy seat. It doesn’t happen just by forgiveness alone. There is an offering made at the mercy seat. The offering is the appeasement. The offering is the blood. The appeasement is an exchange of one life, Christ’s, for the sinner’s life. There is no remission of sin without the blood. So there is no appeasement (propitiation) without the death of an innocent Christ.
And praise the Lord for the victory over death by the risen Christ!
And it must be noted that there is no appeasement without “faith in his blood.”
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
If I could make an observation as a bystander:

Love the exchange (I want to hear the exegesis for both sides), but the tone … not so much.
As a Baptist, we are supposed to be more tolerant of “Individual Soul Liberty” and as Christians, people with different opinions could end up as next door neighbors for ETERNITY.

So by all means “Once more into the breach” … but with Love. ;)
The tone does get too much. We do not like one another (as far as online interactions go) and it comes through.

But thank you for the correction. You are right. I will try to tone back my tone ;)

I agree with "soul liberty" (I am Baptist), but I am not sure how that extends to issues beyond what is not commanded and what is not different interpretations of actual Scripture. That'd be an interesting topic, though.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Romans 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


I think that part of the problem here is that some people are ignoring the how and what propitiation is.
Propitiation happens at the mercy seat. It doesn’t happen just by forgiveness alone. There is an offering made at the mercy seat. The offering is the appeasement. The offering is the blood. The appeasement is an exchange of one life, Christ’s, for the sinner’s life. There is no remission of sin without the blood. So there is no appeasement (propitiation) without the death of an innocent Christ.
And praise the Lord for the victory over death by the risen Christ!
Exactly !!!!!

In the OT the people offered a sacrifice (a "gift" of obedience). Its blood was shed.
BUT atonement was made (Day of Atonement) when the high priest took the blood of the slaughtered animal into the Most Holy Place and sprinkled it on the mercy seat. The High Priest "made atonement for the sins of the people". This cleansed the people.

In the New Testament Christ was obedient to death, offered Himself as a guilt offering. God sets forth Christ as a Propitiation in His blood to be recieved (or applied) by faith. And His blood cleanses from all unrighteousness.

It is never about appeasement (with sin, God cannot be appeased). We have to be very careful not to confuse the biblical sacrifices and atonement (and Christ's sacrifice and atonement) with the general pagan concept of sacrificing animals (or people) to appease their gods (demons).

It was never about paying a debt. It was always about cleansing from sin and guilt, ultimately about being made in Christ's image, a new creation in Him where the guilty man no longer exists.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
And it must be noted that there is no appeasement without “faith in his blood.”
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.

This is at the heart of the gospel. It is not necessarily faith IN the blood but the atonement (reconciliation) recoeved through the shedding of His blood to be received by faith.

This is foreshadowed under the Law.

An animal was slaughtered (its blood shed). The priest made atonement for the sins of the people by applying the blood (sprinkling it).

This looked to the greater sacrifice ("gift" of obedience) as Christ lay down His life. And that blood is applied or recieved by faith.

The point that atonement is accomplished, under both the Old and New Covenants, is never the shedding of blood for the atonement but the application of that blood.

First the high priest is cleansed, then he can enter the Most Holy Place to atonement for the sins of the people.

Christ, the High Priest, entered the Holy Place not made with hands through His blood. We recieve the reconciliation or atonement through faith.
 
Last edited:

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Romans 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


I think that part of the problem here is that some people are ignoring the how and what propitiation is.
Propitiation happens at the mercy seat. It doesn’t happen just by forgiveness alone. There is an offering made at the mercy seat. The offering is the appeasement. The offering is the blood. The appeasement is an exchange of one life, Christ’s, for the sinner’s life. There is no remission of sin without the blood. So there is no appeasement (propitiation) without the death of an innocent Christ.
And praise the Lord for the victory over death by the risen Christ!
Yes! The idea of the 'Great Exchange' comes from Luther. Our sins are laid upon the sinless Christ, and He pays the penalty for them, so that God's outraged justice is satisfied. But also, His perfect righteousness is credited to us, so that we become, 'The righteousness of God in Him' (2 Cor. 5:21). Our sins are (figuratively) nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-15) with the word tetelsestai written on the charge sheet. 'It is finished;' 'It is paid in full.' And our entrance into this amazing grace is through faith.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If I could make an observation as a bystander:

Love the exchange (I want to hear the exegesis for both sides), but the tone … not so much.
As a Baptist, we are supposed to be more tolerant of “Individual Soul Liberty” and as Christians, people with different opinions could end up as next door neighbors for ETERNITY.

So by all means “Once more into the breach” … but with Love. ;)
Your rebuke is entirely justified. I will do my best to heed it.
 

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
The first (propitiated) negates the expression of anger. The second (expiated) is something that appeases the wrath or amends a debt.
So is the point that the blood of Christ does not propitiate, rather it expiates?

Where is that in Scripture?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
So is the point that the blood of Christ does not propitiate, rather it expiates?

Where is that in Scripture?
I believe "propitiate" is the correct word (wrath ceases). Probably FF Bruce is right that it should be "atoning sacrifice".

Many Calvinists argue for expiation (make amends, pay a debt).

Expiation or Propitiation is in:

1 John 2:2 - Jesus Christ is the atoning sacrifice (or propitiation, expiation) for the sins of believers, and not for them alone, but "for the sins of the whole world"

Rom 3:25 - whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.

I am not a Calvinist so obviously I would object to expiation. I believe that is reading into the text given the context.

But the word can and has been translated as "atoning sacrifice", "propitiation", and "expiation".
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Our sins are (figuratively) nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-15) with the word tetelsestai written on the charge sheet. 'It is finished;' 'It is paid in full.' And our entrance into this amazing grace is through faith.
First, let’s start with the myth that is often circulated (like the Christian myth of the candy cane) that τετέλεσται appeared on ancient notes to mean “paid in full”.

This was a popular misunderstanding among certain sects, but it has long been debunked.

Contrary to claims, the purported meaning “paid in full” for τετέλεσται is not found in any ancient Greek sources. It is not in literary works, papyri, or inscriptions. It is not found on ancient notes.

What is found on ancient notes? Τετελ (an abbreviated form of τετελώνηται) and τετελώνηται.

The notes where Τετελ or τετελώνηται appear indicate that something specific has been paid. It means “paid as taxes”.

On the other hand, Τετέλεσται is a word that means something has been finished or accomplished. This word is used to describe the completion of a project, construction, etc. It is NEVER used to refer to the payment of a debt.

While the error that τετέλεσται means “Paid in full” is attractive to some, and perhaps a harmless myth to others, it is based on a misreading of evidence and doesn’t fit the context well, and was never suggested before the twentieth century.

SO WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

By “It is finished (Τετέλεσται),” Jesus meant that He had fulfilled Scriptures.

In John 19:28-30 we read: “Jesus, knowing that all things were completed (τετέλεσται), that the Scripture might be fulfilled [τελειωθῇ, a form of τελειόω], said, “I am thirsty”… then when he had taken the sour wine, he said, “It is finished” [τετέλεσται].” Jesus was proclaiming the fulfillment of Scripture.

Martin Luther believed it had a dual meaning - the above meaning and that He had accomplished the work He came to do (I do not see a difference between these).

It is important because we can look back through the OT (the complete Scripture at that time) and see what Christ accomplished. We look at the Passover, at the sin offerings, at the guilt offerings.

The sacrifice is always an obedience while the act of the priest applying the blood is "making atonement for the sins of the people".

The lambs were killed in obedience but God prohibited the destroyer from entering thd home when He saw the blood applied on thw door posts.

He did not make atonement for us. He offered Himself in obedience as the Atoning Sacrifice, as the Guilt Offering.

This sacrifice of atonement would have to be applied - to be recieved by faith.



As Christians we do have extra-biblical understandings. This is a given (we are human). But we have to be very careful in knowing where Scripture ends and our understanding begins. We also have to be on guard against “old wives takes”, or myths that are false but if true would support our point.


I do not mean this to slight @Martin Marprelate . He probably heard a preacher saying "it is finished" means "paid in full" as a young man, given the sect to which he belongs. But it is a false claim. One may see it on the internet today but it is not held by any scholar as it was disproven not long after the claim surfaced.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
It is never about appeasement (with sin, God cannot be appeased). We have to be very careful not to confuse the biblical sacrifices and atonement (and Christ's sacrifice and atonement) with the general pagan concept of sacrificing animals (or people) to appease their gods (demons).
So is the point that the blood of Christ does not propitiate, rather it expiates?
Yes. This is why I do see reason for serious concern here. It expiates, and propitiation is also necessary. God does have to be appeased, and the pagans had at least a rudimentary understanding of that concept. Even early Baptists like Hubmaier (and yes, it is spelled a dozen ways) viewed Christ's death as a satisfaction for our sin. (The for our sin is the important and irreducible concept.)

So, yes, I believe, as did Packer, that the actual death of Christ and the resulting shedding of blood acted to "appease" God the Father, or satisfy his wrath. I believe that to oppose that is to oppose the gospel. Where it differs from the pagan sacrifices would be that with God the Father, it was his plan, begun before we even existed and derived with his Son. It was begun out of love for us. The wrath against sin was perfectly just and God was right in that view of sin, and his mysterious oneness and union with the Son, means that he in truth was folding the just demand for punishment back upon himself in a sense. And if that concept is difficult for us to understand we still can look at the perfect love between the Father and the Son, and you still get the picture.

So while there are significant differences between Christ's death and pagan sacrifices, it is a grave mistake to diminish or eliminate the essential fact that the sacrificial death of Christ has directly done or at least potentially done a satisfaction or appeasement to God the Father regarding our sin. This is more than an example of supreme obedience or an example of Christ's love for us - although it indeed was that.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Our sins are laid upon the sinless Christ, and He pays the penalty for them, so that God's outraged justice is satisfied. But also, His perfect righteousness is credited to us, so that we become, 'The righteousness of God in Him' (2 Cor. 5:21).
Does 2 Corinthians 5:21 really express the idea that His perfect righteous is credited to us? Lets go to God's Word and see.

Here is the passage:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here. All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:17-21)

If we are in Christ then the new creation has come.

If we are in Christ then the old has gone, the new is here.

We are reconciled to God through Christ.

Is the purpose that God made Christ become sin for us so that He might credit to us His perfect righteousness?

Not according to the passage
.

According to the passage the purpose is so that in Christ we might become the righteousness of God. The new creation has come. The old has gone, the new is here.

We are made new creations in Christ. We are made into the very image of Christ.

While the “old man” is still present in this lifetime there is also Christ in us. The new man is within us IF we are in Him.


As Christians we need to slow down and handle God's words with the care and respect they deserve. We often want to jump the gun and quickly come up with at least part of a verse that sounds like it could fit in our understanding. But we need to take the time and let God's words stand.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Yes. This is why I do see reason for serious concern here. It expiates, and propitiation is also necessary. God does have to be appeased, and the pagans had at least a rudimentary understanding of that concept. Even early Baptists like Hubmaier (and yes, it is spelled a dozen ways) viewed Christ's death as a satisfaction for our sin. (The for our sin is the important and irreducible concept.)
The reason pagans thought gods could be appeased as they viewed their gods as having human failings.

What verse would you point to that tells us how God is appeased?
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
The reason pagans thought gods could be appeased as they viewed their gods as having human failings.
Yes. That's why I outlined the differences in the post above.
Any verse that declares God's reaction to sin and unholiness can be used. Any verse that mentions God's wrath. And this is important because Packer, in his book "Knowing God" has a whole chapter on the wrath of God and he actually counted out the number of times it is in scripture. And of course any verse that talks of God's wrath as being a function of his sense of justice, or right. The pagans did view their gods as having human failings and even our use of the work "wrath" is often described as a human word that does not adequately cover the meaning when applied to God.
What verse would you point to that tells us how God is appeased?

What verse would you point to that tells us how God is appeased?
The same verses we have presented numerous times. Some are mentioned in this very thread. You don't accept them as meaning what they say but that is on you.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
First, let’s start with the myth that is often circulated (like the Christian myth of the candy cane) that τετέλεσται appeared on ancient notes to mean “paid in full”.

This was a popular misunderstanding among certain sects, but it has long been debunked.

Contrary to claims, the purported meaning “paid in full” for τετέλεσται is not found in any ancient Greek sources. It is not in literary works, papyri, or inscriptions. It is not found on ancient notes.

What is found on ancient notes? Τετελ (an abbreviated form of τετελώνηται) and τετελώνηται.

The notes where Τετελ or τετελώνηται appear indicate that something specific has been paid. It means “paid as taxes”.

On the other hand, Τετέλεσται is a word that means something has been finished or accomplished. This word is used to describe the completion of a project, construction, etc. It is NEVER used to refer to the payment of a debt.

While the error that τετέλεσται means “Paid in full” is attractive to some, and perhaps a harmless myth to others, it is based on a misreading of evidence and doesn’t fit the context well, and was never suggested before the twentieth century.
The Greek word teleo, of which tetelestai is (for those who are interested in such things) the 3rd person singular perfect indicative passive. 'It has been,once and for all, finished.' But the meanings of teleo are not exhausted with 'finished.' It can mean, according to Young's Analytical Concordance 'to accomplish' (Luke 9:31), 'to complete or make and end of, 'to perform' (Luke 2:29), 'to fulfil' (Acts 13:29; Rom. 2:27 etc.), and, most importantly for our purposes, it can mean 'to pay.' (Matt. 17:24; Rom. 13:6. Please check them out for yourselves). So tetelestai in John 19:30 can perfectly well mean "It is [ or 'has been'] paid," though I do not at all insist that it must do. There is no reason at all why the abbreviation tetel (or Τετελ, if you prefer) cannot refer to tetelestai ( Τετέλεσται). I cannot dig out my Classical Greek Lexicon ('Liddell & Scott') at present, but I am pretty certain that it does not restrict teleo to the paying of taxes. An unpaid tax, of course, is very much a debt.

Writing this has taken half an hour of my earthly life which I shall never get back, but never mind.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Yes. That's why I outlined the differences in the post above.
Any verse that declares God's reaction to sin and unholiness can be used. Any verse that mentions God's wrath. And this is important because Packer, in his book "Knowing God" has a whole chapter on the wrath of God and he actually counted out the number of times it is in scripture. And of course any verse that talks of God's wrath as being a function of his sense of justice, or right. The pagans did view their gods as having human failings and even our use of the work "wrath" is often described as a human word that does not adequately cover the meaning when applied to God.



The same verses we have presented numerous times. Some are mentioned in this very thread. You don't accept them as meaning what they say but that is on you.
I can see how some pagan beliefs are a corruption of truth. For example, all ANE pagan cults had a flood, had a temple symbolically modeled like the Garden of Eden, etc.

But not with the sacrifices.

The reason is these pagan practices (appeasing their gods through sacrifice) existed long before the Hebrew practices. And there is no account of any sacrifice offered in the Old Testament that was intended to appease God. In fact, the sacrifice itself was a “gift” of obedience. It did not have a bargaining effect. God was pleased with the obedience, which is what He desired. The effect was always in the application of blood.

You may want to revisit the Old Testament sacrifice system in a little more detail. Leviticus probably has the most detail. You can read about the sin offering in Leviticus 4 and the guilt offering in Leviticus 5.

At no time are these offerings described as an appeasement to God. The offering is an act of obedience which pleased God and the atonement is in the application of the blood.

Anyway, reexamine the sacrifices in Leviticus and see if there is any that are described as an appeasement to God. I focused on the sin and guilt offering, and the Day of Atonement, given the subject of this thread but did not revisit to make sure I had not missed anything. I do not believe I have.


I accepted every verse you and your fellow adherents to your understanding have posted on the BB. So I am not sure what verses you ate talking about.

The difference is what each of us believes these verses teach.

Most of the time it has been that I believe what the words in the verse state (I believe what is being taught is exactly "what is written" while you believe the intent of the verse is to teach something other than the meaning of the words or sentences).

Sometimes it is a matter of interpretation. A verse can mean multiple things. @Martin Marprelate believes the "certificate of debt with decrees against us" is sins. I believe it is the law.

Sometimes it is misinterpretation, like @Martin Marprelate misreadingΤετέλεσται (completed; finished; acvomplished) as τετελώνηται (paid taxes; paid in full).

But thus far no passage you have offered has stated your theory (not in the actual text).


We simply have a different standard when it comes to foundational doctrines (essential, central doctrines upon which other doctrines are built).

I believe these doctrines have to be in the biblical text itself (have to be God's words, "what is written"). This is the only way I know to even objectively test a doctrine.

If I cannot highlight the words (the actual words) in the text then I dismiss it or I hold it with a grain of salt (like my understanding, I do not lean on it).
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The Greek word teleo, of which tetelestai is (for those who are interested in such things) the 3rd person singular perfect indicative passive. 'It has been,once and for all, finished.' But the meanings of teleo are not exhausted with 'finished.' It can mean, according to Young's Analytical Concordance 'to accomplish' (Luke 9:31), 'to complete or make and end of, 'to perform' (Luke 2:29), 'to fulfil' (Acts 13:29; Rom. 2:27 etc.), and, most importantly for our purposes, it can mean 'to pay.' (Matt. 17:24; Rom. 13:6. Please check them out for yourselves). So tetelestai in John 19:30 can perfectly well mean "It is [ or 'has been'] paid," though I do not at all insist that it must do. There is no reason at all why the abbreviation tetel (or Τετελ, if you prefer) cannot refer to tetelestai ( Τετέλεσται). I cannot dig out my Classical Greek Lexicon ('Liddell & Scott') at present, but I am pretty certain that it does not restrict teleo to the paying of taxes. An unpaid tax, of course, is very much a debt.

Writing this has taken half an hour of my earthly life which I shall never get back, but never mind.
No. Τετέλεσται cannot be applied to debts. You have the wrong word.

The word you are speaking of is very close, at least to our eyes, so I understand your mistake.

The word you define is τετελώνηται ("paid in full"). This is the word found on ancient notes.

Τετέλεσται refers to something being completed, acomplished, or finished. But never a debt (something like building a house, completing a college course, finishing a project).

While these may be related words they are different words.

The fact Τετέλεσται cannot mean "paid in full" itself does not disprove your theory. It just does not prove it either.

That is why the proper title for PSA is The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Like The Substitution Theory of Atonement, it cannot be proven using Scripture as the standard.

And same with Christus Victor/ Ransom Theory. With these the facts can be proven BUT what makes them theories is the idea that specific aspects are the main focus (Scripture does not prioritize focusing on Christ's victory over evil against Christ's obedience to God, for example).
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
2 Cor. 5:21 says that God made the sinless Christ to be sin for us, with the purpose that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Yes. Sin for us with the purpose that we mught become the righteousness of God in Him.

Did I mistype the verse? If so, my bad.

My point was that this is not so that we would be credited as righteousness but become the righteousness of God in Him. This is supported by the context as well (new creature, old gone, new here)
 
Top