Commentary on NT usage of "propitiate" (JRP)

[JasonPratt]

The problem I see here is that there are essentially two resurrections, one for the righteous and one for the wicked (as hinted at in Daniel 12:2).

It's more than hinted at elsewhere, too; including in the Gospels. (It's blatantly obvious in RevJohn, but Ran doesn't seem to accept the canonicity of RevJohn.)

I've asked Ran to comment on this before. So far, he has either refused to answer; hasn't seen/remembered me asking; or has simply asserted (not in conjunction with my observations and questions on this) that everyone will be resurrected to eternal life and no one to any kind of wrath of God at all.

(To be fair, in some relatively recent comments he seems to allow that it may take God some time to transform us during the resurrection; though again, he hasn't yet taken that position in answer to my own inquiries on the topic.)

[JasonPratt]

So, catching-up time for this thread! (Whew, 13 pages worth.)


While there are (obviously) a lot of things I could (and will) reply to, I think I’m going to begin with this one toward the end; because I think it gets closer to the heart of your problems with what I’m saying. So I’ll comment on this first, and try to work in replies to other comments of yours afterward.

Ran,

I'm not aware of anyone one the boards who thinks they propitiate God. (I know I have stated multiple times, as clearly as I possibly can, that I do not believe any sinner can propitiate God.

How can you say that? One the one hand, you say God is still full of wrath and anger at sinners. Then on the other hand you say Christ did not propitiate that anger. Who does that leave - but the sinner himself responsible for propitiating God?

First, I will repeat again as I’ve done before: I DO NOT CLAIM GOD IS “FULL OF” WRATH AND ANGER AT SINNERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hopefully if I put it in all caps and place lots of exclamation points after it, you’ll have an easier time remembering that this is not my position. I can make the font larger, too, and use multicolors, and underline it and bold it, if you think that will help you remember it instead.

I have very constantly denied that God is “full of” wrath and anger at sinners. I have explained in detail, more than once, why I deny that. My denial is utterly connected with the precepts of orthodox trinitarian theism; which is why I have always and consistently denied this. I know you have been at least temporarily aware that I deny this, because elsewhere you have thrown yourself off the horse on the other side by painting me as though I’m asserting that God was only kidding about ever being angry or something like that.

You’re the one who has been claiming that God was ever “full of” wrath and anger against sinners--and isn’t anymore, thanks to Jesus (as if the Son was not in fact in substantial unity with the Father and so was not Himself just as “full of” wrath and anger against sinners. Despite the repeated textual testimony, as I’ve pointed out numerous times, that the Son is just as angry against sinners as the Father--no more and no less.)

I don’t accept the all or nothing dichotomy: that God either is “full of” anger and wrath toward sinners, or else has no anger and wrath at all toward sinners.

I will repeat again (and again and again and again and again, as I’ve already repeated numerous times): if you’re going to oppose what I believe, PLEASE bother to oppose what I actually believe instead of what I don’t believe.

If you think it’s nonsense for God to act in anger toward impenitent sinners without God being “full of” anger and wrath toward sinners: fine. Oppose that. Because that is actually my position. God being “full of” anger and wrath IS NOT MY POSITION AND NEVER ONCE HAS BEEN MY POSITION!


It’s important to get my position right, because my actual position is that God is loving sinners even when sometimes He has to act in wrath against them. I don’t dichotomize back and forth between God loving a person and God acting in wrath toward a person. And I’m not kidding or being facetious or even trying to be patronizing, when I say that I understand that that can be a real challenge to accept. I don’t blame people for having difficulty with it. (Unless they’re presenting themselves as being very well-versed in ortho-trin theology, in which case frankly I think they ought to know better. But most people aren’t in that category.) If you think it’s nonsense for God’s wrath against sinners to be an expression of God’s love for sinners: fine. Oppose that. Because that is my position.


There isn’t any point in my trying to answer your question of “How can you say that?”, until you succeed in understanding and acknowledging what I actually am claiming. Otherwise, you’re only opposing some phantom over there; and you’ll only keep opposing this or that phantom instead of what I actually believe, even if I try to answer your question.

But, repairing your questions to better fit what I actually believe and what I have actually been claiming:

On the one hand, you say God is still loving impenitent sinners by still acting in wrath against them when they persistently refuse to stop sinning. Then on the other hand you say Christ did not propitiate that love of God for the sinner (much less propitiate some mere anger of God, much moreso propitiate God at all.) Who does that leave to propitiate the love of God -- but the sinner himself responsible for propitiating the love of God?

That was what you should have written, because that would have been a complaint which was accurate to what I’ve been claiming.

And my answers will be what I have always been claiming, too:


1.) I don’t believe attitudes or concepts or action qualities can be propitiated at all. (Nor atoned either.) People are propitiated and atoned. I think it’s simply a category error, in several ways, to propose that God’s anger or justice (or love, for that matter) even can be (much moreso needs to be) atoned or propitiated. I similarly think it’s a category error (though in fewer ways perhaps) to propose that some attitude or concept of ours even can be propitiated or atoned.

2.) I don’t believe God needs propitiating at all. He already loves us and gives Himself for our sake. No one needs to propitiate Him before He will do that. No one needs to propitiate Him into doing that. Ditto atoning.

3.) I don’t consider God’s love and God’s wrath to be mutually exclusive operations. I am not primarily concerned with being saved ‘from God’s wrath’; I am primarily concerned with being saved from sin (my sin and other people’s). I understand God’s wrath to be aimed, as a particular expression of His love, at that goal, for the sake of the sinner.

4.) While I affirm the distinction of the Persons of the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit, too), I deny their substantial disunity. Consequently, I deny that the Father was angry at us but the Son was not; and I deny that the Son was changing the attitude of the Father toward us. Either one of those would involve the Son being in schism and opposition to the Father, thus being in rebellion against the Father. If I believe orthodox trinitarian theism to be true, which I do, I cannot coherently propose such things while still also affirming ortho-trin to be true.

5.) I believe we need atonement to God and propitiation to God, insofar as, in continuing to be sinners, we are not and cannot be at-one with God yet, we are not yet reconciled completely with God, and we are not inclining toward God yet.

6.) I believe God reconciles (atones) us; and even that God propitiates us, so that we will love Him and look favorably on Him and incline toward Him.

7.) Insofar as our responsibility of repentance goes, we cooperate with God in atoning ourselves to God and propitiating ourselves toward God. I deny that this is primarily our responsibility or authority; I deny that this could be done without God’s empowerment; I deny that this could be done without God’s intention that we do it; I deny that this can be done apart from God in any shape, form or fashion. I strenuously deny that we can do this and so somehow earn our salvation from anything (so that God then consequently has to pay us our salvation or whatever). And I certainly and absolutely deny that we atone and/or propitiate God. Frankly, I don’t even much like putting it in terms of us reconciling ourselves to God; I would rather put it the way St. Paul exhorts, that we be reconciled to God. But I do have to recognize our own responsibility in that action, too.

8.) All of which, as I have pointed out at great length, is consistent with scriptural testimony. We sinners are the object of reconciliation/atonement and of propitiation. God (in all Persons) is the doer of the action of reconciliation and of propitiation; He reconciles and even propitiates us. It is not our justice nor our anger that He reconciles and propitiates but us ourselves personally. It is because of our sinning that we require this from God, thus it can be said that He propitiates “for our sins” or “for our sinning”. But He’s still the doer of the action, and we are still the receiver. At the same time, our own cooperative responsibility in the fulfillment of the reconciliation is constantly attested to and even emphasized throughout scripture--even though the scriptures emphasize even more strongly God’s authoritative, responsible and active priority in this common union (or communion), upon which even our own responsibility (as derivative creatures) depends. From God’s perspective the reconciliation is already complete: not only does He see the final success, which is as real to Him in His eternality as our current condition is, but He already does maximally everything for us that He Himself can do. In another way, though, our reconciliation is also not already complete, insofar as we still sin; and insofar as we insist on continuing to sin, He will in fact do wrath to us. (But not because He is “full of” wrath! What He is full of, is what He essentially is, which is love.) The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all Three Persons are in cooperation in regard to all this, both in their action and in their intention. That includes the wrath of the Son and the Holy Spirit personally against sin and against sinners (insofar as sinners insist on holding to their sins). That was true before the cross, and it continues to be true after the cross. There has been no change in God in regard to any of that. Insofar as there is consequently a change in us (including in our knowledge and understanding), we now can be bold in approaching the throne and the holy of holies, following our Great High Priest. Yet until we understand this, especially by means of the cross, we are actually better off, in some limited ways, keeping our distance from God, so as not to sin presumptively in our attempts to approach Him: by trying to presumptively propitiate Him, for example. But that doesn’t mean God is keeping His distance from us, even though He may hide Himself in punishment (or any other purpose) for a time; for He is not far from any of us at any time, whether we see Him or not, whether we understand Him or not, whether we believe He exists or not.


Now, you can either accept what I believe (for whatever reasons), or you can oppose what I believe (for whatever reasons); or you can forget what I actually believe, or ignore what I actually believe, and go oppose something else other than what I actually believe. And what I don’t believe may be well worth opposing (or well worth opposing, too!)

But opposing what I don’t believe and treating that as what I do believe, is worse than worthless in any discussion. If you can’t (for whatever reason) oppose what I actually believe, yet you just really feel a burning need to oppose what I don’t believe (which I can hardly blame you for, I guess ) then go find someone else who believes whatever it is that I don’t believe that you need to oppose--and oppose them on that instead.

Or, oppose what I actually believe. Or, step aside and let someone else take a shot at opposing what I actually believe (or even go find someone to do so), if you aren’t up to opposing what I actually believe (but don’t want to accept it yet, either).

But please, for the love of God if not for charity and fairness to me, please stop opposing what I don’t believe while treating what I don’t believe (and especially what I have constantly denied and opposed myself) as what I do believe instead. Please. It isn’t like you haven’t has vast opportunities to work on doing this, after all.


So for example:

If faith propitiated God...

Which I don’t believe, have never said I believed, have never logically implied, and which I have constantly denied. You might as well start that paragraph over again, because everything after this point is aimed at someone else, not me.

Similarly, I can demonstrate at great length that my faith does not “begin with the position” (awkward or otherwise) “of believing that God is angry at the sinner.” My faith, in the sense of a system of belief, doesn’t even reach the topic of God’s wrath against sin and the sinner, until many many other things are first developed (most important of which being my acknowledgment that God is essentially love)--whether I’m going the exegetical route, or whether I’m going the route of pure metaphysics. And my faith, in the sense either of my trust in God or my loyalty to God, absolutely does not begin with believing that God is angry at sinners. (It would be an outright category error to suppose so, either way. But I expect you only meant faith as a system of belief.) You might as well try again, because you’re aiming at someone else, not me.

“Guts the cross of any meaning”? I obviously recognize numerous meanings and actions occuring on, by and through the cross; which are entirely related to my faith (in all three senses described above); and which I am entirely able to list at length (as you’re already well aware by this point); and which I easily and gratefully appreciate. (Meaning I’m hardly grasping at straws, trying to put meaning on what has been stripped of meaning.) Aiming at someone else, not me.

“Nothing happened there to change the situation”? I have constantly said that what happened there is meant to (and eventually will) change us. Changing us, changes the situation--just like changing God on the cross would change the situation (as you seem to understand well enough). I do deny that the cross changed God in any way. I don’t deny that the cross changes the situation. Aiming at someone else, not me.

“God is still angry and now really angry”? Even your own explication of the fall of Jerusalem has involved God still being angry and now being really angry after the cross--otherwise you wouldn’t treat my constant appeal to blatantly obvious scriptural testimony concerning the continuing anger of God (including Christ) against sin, as not being applicable after the fall of Jerusalem. However, I don’t have anything like the same intrinsically hopeless notion of God’s anger (per se) as you do, such that someone has to change God’s anger in order to be saved from God and His anger. On the surface you’re opposing something I believe there (and the Hebraist, and every other author of the NT, as well as Jesus by report), but since I don’t qualify God’s anger as being mutually exclusive to the object of His love, your aim still ends up being at someone else, not me.

“Changing the truth and God Himself”? Not only do I constantly deny that sinners (or anyone else) change God, by faith or by repentance or any other way, I don’t even believe God needs changing in regard to us. Aiming at someone else, not me.

“God has forgiven mankind, whether His forgiveness is believed or not”? But I have constantly said God does forgive and has forgiven mankind. You may believe it is ridiculous or inconsistent for me to believe and to claim (and to show by testimony from the scriptures!) that God in one (and the most important) way has forgiven mankind while also claiming that in another way (in regard to whatever we insistently continue sinning) God has not yet completed forgiving mankind. But that is not the same as believing God simply has not forgiven mankind--which is the sort of position your opposition is currently aimed at. A both/and position cannot be opposed by pretending the proponent doesn’t believe one of the positions he robustly asserts; no moreso than unitarians can oppose orthodox trinitarians by affirming the humanity of Christ and pretending we don’t also affirm that. As usual, you’re aimed at someone else, not me.

“But I continue to see the error repeated that it is one's faith or repentance that earns forgiveness and resurrection”? You may see that among other people, and you may imagine (through willfulness or ineptitude, despite everything I’ve said) that you see me doing that error; but you’re still aiming at someone else, not me.

Our anger at Him needed propitiating?

Never claimed our anger at Him needed propitiating, including in the quote you referenced. Aiming at someone else, not me.

'Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness.'

Wasn’t denying that. Was affirming (along with the scriptures, including along with Jesus by report) that without repentance there is no forgiveness. The affirmation of the latter is not a denial of the former. Aiming at someone else, not me.

Your argument continues to have God saying, 'Aw shucks, I never really meant that 'law and sin and death' against you stuff anyway. I'm too nice for that.'

It’s extremely amusing that you bounce from this, to my argument continuing to have a God “filled with wrath” etc. I would say “Make up my mind!” ; but considering how often you are completely wrong about my positions, I think I’ll stick to what I consistently claim on this and other topics, thanks. Meanwhile, definitely aiming at someone else, who thinks God is too nice (and/or never meant) to punish people in wrath, including with death; not aiming at me.

Even Islam can grab hold of the 'example' thingie. You're a viper for reducing Christ to that.

This is in reply to a huge list of “thingies” that I affirm God was enacting (and thereby also testifying to) on the cross. But I’m not the one reducing those actions to mere ‘examples’ (much less to supreme inaction) by God. And I expect that Muslims would generally reject my affirmations of God enacting anything (or even only an example) on the cross; much moreso the “thingies” (as you put it) that I affirmed God was doing, not only there on the cross, but eternally. (Try and think BIG, Ran. ) At least this time there’s some clue who you were aiming at, not me!

You continue to talk as though Christ didn’t actually bear the sins of the world

This is after I affirm that God suffers on the cross with the innocent when they are unjustly treated (i.e. that He bears the results of the sins of the world); and after I affirm that God suffers on the cross along with the guilty when they are justly punished (i.e. that He bears the results of the sins of the world in this way, too). I have also affirmed elsewhere that God bears the sins of the world on the cross; and that, in the Son, God in essence strikes Himself (by having ultimate authority in His own crucifixion). I have also affirmed more than once that God bears responsibility for the sins of the world! Perhaps you don’t agree God does any of those; and I’m pretty sure you think that something more is required in order to bear the sins of the world than being stricken for and by and with the sins of the world and being stricken by Himself for our sake. But I think this constitutes Christ actually bearing (and paying for) the sins of the world. So I am not, in fact, continuing to talk as if He didn’t do so. Aiming at someone else, not me.

[Jason continues to talk as though by bearing the sins of the world, God] wasn’t actually guilty and wasn’t justly punished with death.

At last!! You manage to actually accurately identify a position of mine! (Though you neglected to mention the “God” part.) Yep, I have to agree: I believe God wasn’t actually guilty of any sin, and wasn’t justly punished as a sinner with death, whether by other sinners or by Himself. Most theists, including most trinitarians, don’t actually think God was actually guilty of any sin, though; even when (as I do) we affirm that God on the cross is taking ultimate responsibility for our sins and paying for our sins. Nor do I think Christ ever stated in a mission statement anywhere that God (the Father, the Holy Spirit, or the Son) is or was guilty of any sin, much moreso that God would be justly punished therefore (by God or by anyone else; by death or by any other punishment). I am glad you got this position of mine correct. You are welcome to oppose it as much as you want. Good luck with that!

The truth is in His mission statement - He came to set the captives free. 'Examples' can't save us from death - blood sacrifice and atonement can. Our resurrection was PAID for.

I affirm all those points. The fact that I don’t quite mean what you mean by them, doesn’t mean I don’t affirm all those points. Back to aiming at someone else, not me.

My redeemer is alive.

Definitely aiming at someone else, not me.

Try and think BIG, Jason

This was right before quoting where I went infinitely beyond mere temporal sequence in affirming the uniqueness of God’s sacrifice on the cross; and right after making reference to a large number of purposes for the cross, some of which would be rejected by various theologians for going far too far.

This doesn’t even rise to the error of aiming at someone else! It’s only hugely ironically amusing.

Horse hockey! The LAST sacrifice is not unique???

This was in reply to my statement that God’s sacrifice on the Christ (which by the way I consider to be the first and the last and the living sacrifice--going very far beyond being only ‘the last sacrifice’ per se, though I agree with that, too, in a merely temporal sense) is unique because of Who and What He uniquely is. You may disagree about that; and/or you may disagree about me going on to deny that the sacrifice is uniquely new in itself. But redefining terms so that “is” means “is not”, is (as I think someone once said) the oldest trick in the book. Also, my affirmation of the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice necessarily includes the affirmation that God, in sacrificing Himself (including on the cross), did and does something that I can’t do (for myself or for anyone else--because I am not uniquely God acting in a fashion uniquely possible only to God because of Who and What He uniquely is). At best, you’re aiming at someone else, not me.

The brunt of the comments seems to appeal to an emotional response as being the purpose of the crucifixion.

Whereas I explicity and repeatedly said that the purpose of the crucifixion was God’s supreme enaction of what He is always doing and accomplishing (and changing, too) in regard to sinners (though not in regard to Himself). You obviously disagree about that, and that’s fine; but to imagine that by this I mean the purpose of the cross constitutes, in any primary way, an appeal to an emotional response, is aiming at someone else again, not me. (To be fair, you were in fact replying to someone else, in a thread which involved people giving their beliefs on the topic of the purpose of the cross, not only my reply. So you may not in fact have had my reply in mind. But considering how wildly off-base you tend to be in relating to my position, I thought I’d mention this, too, just in case. )

The Law and its ordinances against man got nailed to the cross - men didn't accomplish that.

I certainly wouldn’t and never have considered men to have positively accomplished anything in nailing the Word Himself to the cross (but rather that we sin against God by doing so); and I have always stressed that God had the final and ultimate authority in being nailed Himself to the cross. And insofar as the Law and its ordinances against man were also (figuratively and spiritually) nailed to the cross, I certainly affirm God did that, not man. Aimed at someone else, not me. (But see previous parenthetical disclaimer in your favor, perhaps, above: you may not have actually been thinking of me and my claims there.)

If I am to give a reason for my hope, it certainly doesn't reside with something I did. That's strange talk to those who think they have something to add to the atonement (besides their sin).

I don’t think we or anyone else atone God at all; and thus I don’t think we have anything to add to such an atonement either. I think God atones us, and expects us to cooperate with that, and so in a derivative and subordinate way (subordinate to God and derivative from God) I am willing to claim that we have something to add (our repentance) to the atonement of us. (Just as scriptural authors agree, OT or NT either one, including Jesus by report.) I don’t consider such repentance to be a reason for my hope of salvation, though; and I don’t consider my hope of salvation to reside with something I ever did. Overall, then, you’re still aiming at someone else, not me. (But ditto prior parenthetical disclaimer in your favor.)

More like the supreme inaction [instead of what I called the supreme enaction] since you believe there was no atonement of God.

You may not agree with some or all of the huge list of actions I believe occurred on the cross; but calling those enactions inactions is purely and simply and willfully ignoring whatever you don’t want to hear and pretending something else instead. True, I (and the NT authors) believe there was no atonement of God (as the object of atonement) on the cross. But that hardly amounts to supreme inaction of God, especially when many other actions of God on the cross can be listed. Aimed at someone else (who actually believes in supreme inaction of God, if anyone does--a nominal or minimal deist, or maybe some types of cosmological dualist), not me.

He's still, so you say, filled with wrath, unchanged in His Justice even by the blood sacrifice of His only son.

Yep, I believe God is unchanged in His justice (!!!thank God!!!); a change which the blood sacrifice of the Son (also God Himself) was not even trying to accomplish. To change His justice would be for Him to enact injustice, and I deny that. So, as far as you go, in a very superficial way, you’ve got that right--though you do so at the expense of bothering to consider what I have often discussed as my belief about God’s positive fulfillment of justice, including on the cross. Also, I have never once said (despite your “so you say”, which you didn’t bother to provide a quote for--since no such quote exists) that God is filled with wrath, then now or later. Aimed at someone else, not me.

If one believes that one can turn away God's wrath (propitiation) by something they do - they make Christ superfluous.

I don’t believe we can or do propitiate Christ at all; I don’t believe we can (per se) turn away God’s wrath; and I don’t believe in the least that Christ’s sacrifice is superfluous. Aimed at someone else, not me.

Some here think THEY propitiate God and want me silenced.

Piffle. If anyone in the forum adminstration wanted to just silence you, you wouldn’t be allowed to post anything, period. You would simply be banned, and maybe all evidence of your involvement here balefired out of existence; end of story. Instead, the most we’ve done (so far as I know) has been to repeatedly ask you to play nicely; and to warn you; and then finally to edit out a couple of words (and to let you know we did so) on one post, when you refused to abide by the forum rules. We’re far more likely to be blamed for giving you an inch and allowing you to run a mile. (Such as calling people unethical names; much moreso, doing so on grounds which are abundantly and demonstrably false.) Moreover, I have continually counseled leniency for you. Also, I don’t believe for a single moment that I propitiate God, and everything I have written in (especially in this particular thread on the NT use of the term ‘propitiation’) is consonant with that. Totally aimed at someone else, not me.


Your faith, such as it is, isn’t succeeding even in seeing the truth about what I believe; but is taking on the unhealthy function of (at best) changing the truth about me.

So: is your faith likely to be more or to be less accurate in regard to seeing and accepting the truth about God?

[debbieboutwell]

Jason,

You said,

"All have sinned and so are wanting of the glory of God. (3:23) The usual translation is “fallen short of the glory”, but the actual term is ‘wanting’; which will fit in very well afterward."

I looked in Youngs and it said "fallen short" also..or something very similar.. I love how you put it about all are wanting of the glory of God. Can you tell me how you got that?

Thank You,

Debbie

[JeffA]

Surely this is 'wanting' the sense of ..

'You are weighed in the balance and found wanting..' i.e. lacking something not desiring it.

[JasonPratt]

A fine question; and one I would have had to spend much more time on originally (in the middle of an already lengthy set of entries on a somewhat different topic). So I'm glad Debbie has come back to it!

(The post in this thread, that Debbie is asking about, can be found here, by the way.)

The term at Rom 3:23 is {hustereo_}, or more precisely it's the plural middle voice cognate of that verb: {husterountai}. We would say "all are x-ing". (And for ease of reference I'll afterward just tack an English suffix onto it, usually. If anyone wants, I can produce the actual Greek suffix instead for any example.)

The word isn't used very often in the NT, actually. But when it is, it's almost indisputably referring to wanting something--and not just casually wanting something either, nor simply lacking something, but desperately lacking something, enough so that the person lacking it might be expected to panic. (It's the same word we get 'hysteria' from, too.) It's a crying need, like starvation (which is the usual literal or analogical meaning being appealed to).

So, the prodigal son in Luke 15:14 begins to be in hustero after he has spent all his money right before a severe famine hits the country he's living in. He's in such dire need that he joins himself to one of its citizens, a man who sends him out into the fields to feed hogs. (That verb 'joins' is probably a euphamism for the other unclean thing that would have disgusted Jews most. In order to eat, this formerly proud and disdainful man, who has demanded his father's death-inheritance and wasted it on prostitutes, is most likely prostituting himself.) He isn't simply not achieving a standard or goal.

Luke 22:35 has Jesus reminding the disciples (before leaving for Gethsemene) that when He sent them out earlier on missionary work they did not hustero for anything, did they? (No they didn't. But now He recommends they arm themselves. Sadly, they most likely think this means the armed rebellion is about to kick off!--even though He has been trying to warn them otherwise. ) Back when they were on mission, they weren't simply not achieving a standard or goal for anything.

John 2:3; when the wedding part is hustering wine, they aren't simply not achieving a standard or goal for having it. They've run flat out, which culturally speaking could be considered a disastrous sign for the wedding (and will surely bring great shame on both the master of the house and the chief steward in charge of the wedding party.)

Mark 12:13; the moral of the incident of the widow's mites, is that she gives more than all the others, "For they all cast out of their superfluity, yet she, out of her hustereo, casts all, as much as she had--all her livelihood." She is hardly falling short by doing so!--nor is she doing so out of her falling short. She is doing so despite her crying poverty, giving all of what little she has.

1 Cor 1:7; Paul says that the Corinthians are not hustering in any grace. This can hardly mean that they themselves are not falling short of any grace, though; first, because Paul is about to talk at length concerning ways in which they themselves are falling short of being gracious; and second, because in the immediately preceding context Paul is "always thanking my God concerning you, over (or about) the grace of God which is being given you in Christ, for in everything are you enriched in Him... so that you are not hustering in any grace." They are not hustering in any grace, because God in Christ is giving them all His grace--for which Paul is thankful. The context must mean that they are not wanting or rather lacking grace.

1 Cor 8:8; Paul says that those who don't eat meat sacrificed to idols will not be in hustereo. He can hardly be trying to reassure his readers that those who don't eat that meat will not be falling short of a goal or standard, since the whole point of this section is that eating meat sacrificed to idols is actually okay unless one thinks it is still sinful, therefore those who understand their freedom to do so shouldn't push that freedom on those who are still 'weak' about it (because that would actually be tantamount to seducing them into sin!) i.e., the ones refusing to eat the meat already think they are thereby meeting the goal or standard. Paul's point is not to affirm that they're not falling short, but rather that our food habits per se do not give us a standing with God, and that the two factional sides shouldn't worry about each other. Those who eat (like St. Paul) are not cloyed (i.e. are not getting too much, "superabounding"), and those who don't eat will not be hustereo: they are not (by context) putting themselves in a dangerous lack. They don't need that meat to survive. (Apparently some of the ones eating the sacrificed meat were worried that they were getting more than their brothers and out of charity's sake were wanting to force their dissenting brothers to share in the bounty. But Paul's argument is that, until the weaker believers actually learn better, it actually would be a sin for them to eat the meat.)

2 Cor 11:9; Paul's hustereon is being met by brethren coming from Macedonia. He isn't trying to get anything for his hustereon from the Corinthian congregation, for whom Paul is actually raiding other congregations in order to ration food to them! No commenter thinks this means anything other than that Paul isn't appealing to the Corinth church to supply him, but rather that he is trying to meet their needs while not encumbering them with his own. (The contextual usage goes back to 11:5 and on to 12:11, too.)

Phil 4:12; back in verse 11, Paul stresses that they shouldn't interpret what he just said (in verse 10) as a hint from him that he has a want, "for I learned to be content in what I am. I am aware (what it is) to be humbled as well as aware (what it is) to be superabounding. In all and among all am I initiated, to be satisfied as well as to be hungering, to be superabounding as well as to be hustering." It's blatantly obvious here (and in vv.14-20) that Paul isn't talking about falling short of a goal or standard.

Heb 11:37; the faithful prophets and heroes of the OT wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, in hustereo, mistreated (being stoned, sawn, and murdered by the sword). No one ever supposed that this means these mighty ones of the faith fell short of a goal or standard. (Doubtless, that happened, too--much of the Hebraist's argument elsewhere is about how the great Hebrew spiritual mediators necessarily fall short of Christ. But that clearly isn't his rhetorical point here. He only means they were starving with a crying lack of something, and were willing to do so for the sake of a better promise.)


Now to consider some possible counter-examples of usage:

The rich young ruler is described (in Mark 10:21 and Matt 19:20) as hustering in one thing. In GosMatt he asks, "In what am I still hustereon?" This could by metaphor mean "falling short" of a standard or goal (keeping the commandments), especially in the case of GosMatt where he may be asking "in what am I still deficient?" But the larger context doesn't seem to be primarily about his attempt at simply meeting a standard and failing; he seems in genuine desperation, and Jesus looks upon him and loves him when He declares that the young man is still hustering in one thing.

Heb 12:15; this might be one place where the context might suggest hustereo means "to fall short": the phrase is similar to that of Rom 3:23, "so that no one is hustering of the grace of God", and there is shortly afterward a warning by comparison with Esau who, for one meal, gave up his own birthright and is afterward rejected. However, the full admonition for verses 14 and 15 is: "Pursue peace with all, and holiness, apart from which no one shall be seeing the Lord; supervising so that no one is hustering of the grace of God, nor any root of bitterness, sprouting up, may be annoying you and through this the majority may be defiled." The exhortation is that those in charge of supervising do their duty in providing the grace of God so that no one is hungering for it; the parallel with Esau actually reinforces the point, since it was for the sake of his hunger that he rebelled against his own birthright.

1 Cor 12:24; in talking about how the disreputable or dishonorable or disrespectable parts of our body turn out to be necessary and even invested with more exceeding honor, Paul talks about how the respectable parts of our body have no need (meaning no need of honor) but that God blends our body together giving to those parts which are hustering more exceeding honor, that there will be no schism in the body but so that all the body's members may be solicitous to one another. While by analogy this might be talking about how the disrespectable members of the congregation have fallen short and so God gives them more honor, the obvious grammatical contextual comparison is one of need: the ones which are lacking the honor need that honor, which God supplies to them.

Heb 4:1; this is one case where the surrounding context probably does allow the notion of falling short of a goal--since the surrounding context is precisely about some evangelized people (the ancient Hebrews) falling short of entering into God's sabbath due to their stubbornness of heart. (Which in verse 7 is clarified as being their hardening of their hearts, the idea being that if they ever hear His voice today, "you should not be hardening your hearts!") "We may be afraid, then," says the Hebraist, "lest at some time, a promise being left of entering into His stopping, any one of you may be seeming to be hustereo." Wanting, needing, lacking, being deficient--by context this is in fact falling short. But it is falling short because we are not in fact deficient. We may be seeming to be deficient, but that is our fault, not God's; God has supplied for us. (Specifically, God supplies us, and them, the evangel: "For we have been evangelized, even as those also.") In effect we are abusing His grace (a chief concern of the Hebraist here and elsewhere) whenever we sin and especially when we persistently insist on sinning. It is not that we are lacking His grace. It is not even that we are wanting His grace; the point is precisely that, in a couple of different ways, we don't want His grace!--we may prefer our sins!

Being sinners, we are wanting His grace as an internal need which must be supplied and without which we cannot survive; God gives us that grace fully and freely (in fact He was giving it already, or we wouldn't even be capable of sinning); when we sin we abuse that grace, as though God has never bothered to teach us better. But He did, and He provided.


So, how should Rom 3:23 be translated and interpreted? All sin (Jew and Gentile both, by Paul's context), and all are hustering of the glory of God. Yet a righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ, into all, and on all the ones who are believing, is being manifested (apart from the Law, though attested to by the Law and the Prophets). Why on all? Because there is no distinction: all have sinned, and all are hustering of the glory of God. (Everyone agrees the phrase is "of the glory of God", of course.) And all (by grammatic context, as explained in the commentary) are being justified gratuitously in His grace through the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus toward the display of His righteousness in the current era, into Him: to be just, and a Justifier of the one who is out of (or from) the faith of Jesus.

It is of course entirely true that when we sin we try to place ourselves on par with God (and even over-against God!); and of course we cannot succeed in that ambition; so of course we fall short of having the glory of God. It isn't that this translation and interpretation is a bad or false one.

But the word most often refers to a desperate need for something. Because we actually lack the grace of God? No, but we are given it by God because we desperately need it. And that is obviously what the surrounding context is about: God giving His grace gratuitously through His glory--through His shekinah Who is Christ Jesus. The context (both immediately, and more largely all through this half of Romans) isn't about us falling short of attaining competitive Godhood (true though that must always be), but about God giving that grace to everyone because everyone, Jew and Gentile both, cryingly (even hysterically) need it.


And in case it isn’t apparent (though it ought to be blatantly apparent), the grammar of propitiation and atonement in the New Testament utterly fits this notion of salvation by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to us: God saves us, atones us, even propitiates us (bringing us laughter in Greek; causing us to lean toward Him, as it was eventually translated in the Vulgate from which we get the term ‘propitiate’). The action is God’s; we, the sinners, are the receiver of the action.

Because we need it.

And God (Father and Son in union--and the Holy Spirit, too! ) meets our need gratuitously.

Even shockingly so. For God’s grace does run opposite to our natural expectation: which is that the deity hates us and so someone must make peace with Him first before He will be at one with us, before He will smile on us, before He will deign to lean in our direction. But God isn’t the problem. We sinners are the problem, going away from God.

Fortunately, God goes out after even the 100th sheep; not needing to be convinced to do so first (by some other lesser god or some other equal God or whatever. )

[JeffA]

I found this an interesting article by a chap called Charles Hawtin which seems to be in agreement with Jason's views on propitiation in this thread.

I would humbly suggest to everyone, however, to have a read of Romans Chapter 14 - I'd be very interested in people's response to it in the light of some of the ways this particular debate has raged .

[JasonPratt]

Great link, Jeff!

Honestly, it is the doctrine of our propitiation by God, which I myself would think is the strongest argument for no forthcoming punishment of anyone by God (by means of the light of a final revelation which no rational will would willingly deny, as Mr. Hawtin believes, along with several others on our forum)--were it not for very much scriptural evidence against the notion that God will simply reveal Himself someday and by that means bring all persons willingly into the fold.

But there is that to factor into the account as well (in a total exegesis); and I think that scriptural expectation is founded on a realistic clarity concerning the propensity for willful self-deception. The Biblical picture, overall, is not about those who are currently blind by no choice of their own and who only need sufficient light to gratefully receive--though there is quite a bit said along that line, too (and thank God for that)--but about those who kick against the goads (meaning Christ was working on a resisting Saul before the Damascus road experience), and those who stuff up their ears and squint shut their eyes so that they will not repent and be saved, and those who refuse to come into the light but prefer the darkness because they love fondling their sins. It is far from impossible (as I can testify from personal and self-critical experience) for a single person to exhibit both kinds of blindness. And the overall picture also anticipates this, insofar as on one hand our inclinations to sin are an inherited curse (from which we may be simply healed) yet we are also personally responsible for our sins: which requires real repentance on our part, not only healing.

I do think then that the total picture, though still ultimately hopeful of God's success in salvation (and still promising such an outcome), is still more complex--I would say more realistically complex--than Mr. Hawtin presents it as being.


Having said that, I wish to quote something from his presentation that I am not sure I emphasized enough myself, though I do believe it:

Paul, writing that wonderful twenty-fifth verse, says, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood." Now who is it that Paul says has faith in the blood of Christ? I know that all theology and past teaching will oppose me, but the truth is simply this: It was God the Father who had faith in His Son and in His blood, and because of that faith in the blood of His Son, He openly declared His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, that is to say, all the sins of the world from Adam to the cross, and undoubtedly for the ages ahead. The life is in the blood. Do not forget that cardinal truth. So great was God's faith in the life blood of His Son that was released by crucifixion and death that He declared the remission of all the sins of the past, making Christ the justifier of all who believe in Him.

I think what I did emphasize was the faith of Jesus Christ--which has to be faith in His Father, surely not in us--but I neglected to emphasize (or even mention, really) the faith of the Father in the Son and in the success of the Son's self-sacrifice for our sake (which synchs up Rom 3 beautifully with Col 1.) Mr. Hawtin also makes a fine point connecting this to God's propitiation of us, by consideration of the immediately following verses (which I think I also neglected, though I recall meaning to write on their connection as I've used it before elsewhere), where clearly it is the faithfulness of God in view explicitly compared to the faithlessness of all sinners: does our faithlessness abrogate the faith of God? May it never be!!


As to Rom 14: actually, I have noted several times before (including recently in this thread, while commenting on a parallel passage in 1 Cor!) that it is better not to force (or even to induce) someone to accept something they believe to be sinfully wrong, because even if they are technically incorrect they will be acting against the best light they can see at the time and so will in fact be sinning to do so. Meaning we will be even more guilty as their seducers!

Which I have in fact put into play several times in regard to Ran, Jeff. Much of my most recent reply to him was even predicated on this notion: I want him to oppose me where he thinks I am wrong; and not so that I will have someone to crusade against, nor even primarily so that I can correct him, but because (to paraphrase how I put it back much earlier) I thoroughly believe it's important for people to oppose what they believe to be logically and especially ethically wrong and so be faithful to the truth thereby even if it's me they are opposing by doing so.

I think, though, I have some right not only to point out, but also to complain, when the opponent has had vast opportunities to do better, where the opponent continually aims somewhere else other than what I am believing and claiming, while purporting to be opposing what I am claiming (and to be opposing me personally, as "a viper" for example). When someone persistently misidentifies what I believe despite numerous clear corrections, and along the way blames me for having a "faith" that changes facts around, then the self-refuting irony has become too complete. And it is time to call attention to it.

But that doesn't change what I've said in favor of Ran's opposition. I am only appealing to his own standard, so that eventually he might at least oppose what I actually believe instead of what I do not believe.

[JeffA]

I'm glad the link was of use Jason; particularly as the very passage you quote was really the one that made me think of your line of reasoning.

As for Romans 14 that's just me throwing some scriptural napalm into the undergrowth to see who shouts 'Ouch!' .

[Aaron]

First I just want to say that I am in fundamental agreement with most everything Jason has said on this thread, and that I've found his commentary quite edifying. I don't believe God has ever been in need of propitiation; we are the ones who need to be "pacified" and "appeased," and it is for this reason that Christ was sent by the Father. Christ's death on the cross was the ultimate expression of God's benevolent, forgiving disposition toward mankind, and crowned his divinely-appointed mission of revealing to us the paternal heart of God. When we properly understand the meaning and implications of Christ's death on our behalf, we will hear God telling us and all the world: "I have always loved and been reconciled to you; I will always be your Father, and you will always be my children, no matter how far you may stray from my love." And it is as the only one who fully reveals the heart of God that Christ is said to be the paraclete in 1 John 2:1. Christ was not sent to represent us to God, but to represent God to us. He calls to us to see God for who he really is, and to joyfully submit to him out of filial love.

Having said that, allow me to switch gears and attempt to address a problem raised by Dondi in response to something RanRan wrote. Dondi said:

I find this statement rather curious. If you are equating being born again with the resurrection, then it automatically brings up a problematic observation in my mind.

In Nicodemus' engagement with Jesus, he brings up the question of returning to one's mother's womb to be reborn. The point I wish to make here is that none of us had any control of our being born, it just happened (as an act of God, if you will). Likewise, Ran, you seem to be saying that none of us have any control of being born again (resurrected), it will just happen (as an act of God, if you will).

The problem I see here is that there are essentially two resurrections, one for the righteous and one for the wicked (as hinted at in Daniel 12:2). But if resurrected equates to being born again, then why would there be a distinction, particuarly of something we have no control over. If Christ's sacrifice is universal, then we all ought to be resurrected to eternal life, and not 'shame and everlasting contempt'. Seems to me there is a behavioral factor at work here. Perhaps you can explain?

While I am not in agreement with RanRan's equating the new birth with the resurrection, I think we are both in agreement that the resurrection is an unconditionally bestowed blessing, and that the state into which we are resurrected is in no way determined by our conduct prior to death. What then of Daniel 12:2? Well, I understand it essentially the same way as I understand Christ's words in John 5:27-29 (viewtopic.php?f=12&t=605#p5909). But because I see this subject as primarily eschatological in nature, my explanation can be found under that category (viewtopic.php?f=18&t=628).

[JasonPratt]

Incidentally, I will be moving along to comment on various eschatological threads soon, Aaron. End of the year busy-ness at work (and start-of-the-year busy-ness), along with some other factors, has delayed me in finishing catching up with everything but those eschatological threads! I have plans to do so this weekend, though, and have been greatly looking forward to doing so for some time.

(Including especially various discussions on the resurrection of the evil to eonian crisis instead of to life eonian. )