What does propitiation mean?

[Alex Smith]

In the Bible, love is defined as Christ bearing the brunt of God's wrath against our sin. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 Jn. 4:10). A denial of the wrath of God is therefore a denial of propitiation (which is bearing the wrath of God), and this in its turn is a denial of love as biblically defined. This means that to deny the reality of Hell is to deny the love of God which saves us from the wrath of that Hell, and to deny the love of God is the first step in creating our own little microcosm of that Hell, which Rob Bell is engaged in doing. He is the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, and if he is right about what rejecting the love of God does (and he is), then it would appear that someone is trying to turn that place into Mars Hell.

This made me ask myself, what does propitiation mean??

How certain are we that it means "bearing the wrath of God"?

Unfortunately, this verse is the only place the underlying Greek word appears. A similar Greek word, which is also usually translated propitiation, only appears in:

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

[just me]

I looked it up

it means an atonement

so 1 John 2:2 could read like this

He is the atonement (payment) for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

[JasonPratt]

A couple of years ago (back in Sept of 2009) I wrote a huge study on this topic for the forum, examining every NT occurrence I could find of {hilas-} and its cognates, as well as the term translated "atonement" or "reconciliation" and its cognates.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=518 -- that's the propitiation study.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=519 -- and here's the atonement/reconciliation study.

The short answer is that Douglas Wilson is galactically wrong about what the term means and how it is used in the NT.

[amy]

Justme said...He is the atonement (payment) for our sins

I wonder if it's even correct to say atonement is payment.

Alex, so much of that initial quote seems so misguided to me.

In the Bible, love is defined as Christ bearing the brunt of God's wrath against our sin.

If this is his premise he builds on, is this even right? Looking up wrath on biblegateway now... It says God's wrath is on those that are disobedient, that we are saved from God's wrath through Jesus, Jesus rescues us from wrath, but how seems like the million dollar question. No where, that I can see, does it say God puts his wrath on Jesus. I think they read this into the texts in places like Isaiah 53:

yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;

We considered him punished by God, but was he? The but would not make sense here.

vs. 4 says... 4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,

Is this the same as bearing God's wrath? I don't think so. And how it says yet right after this, "yet we considered him punished by God." Yet doesn't make sense if the he bore our pain and suffering was God's wrath. It's as if to say what he bore was as a result of our doing, not God's, though I know it pleased God for Him to offer himself for our sake. Perhaps vs. 3 clarifies, "3 He was despised and rejected by mankind." Was he despised and rejected by God? It was we that despised Him.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

What does it mean that the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. For me, it means that he willingly handed his Son over to us, to evil men to kill him, for our sake. Our sin kills Jesus because we've each turned our own way.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent

Who was oppressing and afflicting Jesus? Who were the shearers? I think we were even though it was God's plan for Jesus to lay down His life for us. It's God's plan for all of us to lay down our lives for others.

10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes[c] his life an offering for sin,

But why? Because God's sense of justice was satisfied in Jesus being beat? I don't think so. It's also God's will for us to suffer in doing good for others and to make our lives an offering.

vs 11 by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities. vs. 12 For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

He bore our sin, not God's wrath.

Just my 2 cents, but I think we are misunderstanding what is going on here with Jesus serving as a sin offering, giving His life up to bring us to God. It's ultimately our sin, hostility, that is an obstacle for coming to God, not God's hostility toward us that he is satisfied with putting wrath on Jesus. He is satisfied with Jesus' sacrifice because it is a demonstration of his love, not wrath, and deals with our sin in such a way that we seek God - what he really wants. It's never been blood that he's after. We need reconciling to Him and not Him to us. I'm feeling more and more disturbed with penal substitution these days. Feels like another dark doctrine that's made it's way in the back door.

Looking forward, Jason, to reading your stuff.

[amy]

I was also just remembering that people think God put his wrath on Jesus because Jesus says, "Father why have you forsaken me?" But had God really forsaken him? Or was he not feeling this way as he bear the brunt of all our sin?

[Alex Smith]

Thanks Amy. It's hard tricky stuff, especially trying to come to the passage without preconceived theology

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

This popped into my head, although I don't know if it helps

But had God really forsaken him?

No, otherwise, Jesus would have instantly vaporised i.e. God always sustains all things.

[revdrew61]

Amy, I fully agree with your reading of Isaiah 53. There was an interesting post and discussion thread on this over at Derek Flood's blog in June last year http://www.therebelgod.com/2010/06/non-penal-understanding-of-isaiah-53.html
Penal substitution comes from the same stable as the doctrine of ECT and is suspect for many of the same reasons. The most obvious criticism of it is that it has God needing to be reconciled to us, whereas the Bible only ever speaks of us needing to be reconciled to God.

[JasonPratt]

Btw, I agree with Amy that the point to Isaiah's Suffering Servant is that he (and/or He) is struck by our sin and our wrath, not by the wrath of God.

Also, aside from pointing out the ultimately hopeful context of Psalm 22 against the feeling of despair in the first verse (and the whole scene in the Synoptics there explicitly concerns the context of Psalm 22, not simply the first verse): had the Father really abandoned the Son (not even counting schisming the Trinity there, which would have led to more than only Jesus poofing out of existence--it would have meant all of reality, including our system of Nature, past present and future poofing out of existence), there would have been no resurrection.

Relatedly, penal substitution atonement theory only has a chance of making theological sense on its own ground, if the Son bears the full punishment of all sinners (as everyone agrees, Calv Arm or Kath, whether they accept penal-sub or not); but if the full and "just" punishment of sinners really is ECT, then Christ should have been hopelessly condemned to ECT! But obviously this didn't happen. Or, Christ should have been hopelessly condemned to annihilation! But obviously that didn't happen either.

[amy]

Revdrew61, I remember seeing that link you mention on Isaiah 53. Loved it! I'm sure that's why I was able to recall so quickly how we've misunderstood the passage. I think Alex should read that. It's better written.

Alex said...Hosea 6:6 (NIV) wrote:
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings

That is a really revealing verse!

Hebrews 9:14..How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Hebrews Ch. 9 is a chapter that talks a lot about the blood and we need to understand why the blood. This verse captures well for me the purpose of Jesus spilling his blood, so that our consciences are cleansed from acts that lead to death and we serve God. God actually cares to take away our sin and not the wrath despite continued sin. And other passages seem to indicate that we are in danger of wrath if we continue sinning.

vs. 13 says..The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.

The blood of bulls and goats, which we are told is impossible to take away sin, made people outwardly clean. But, since sin originates in the heart Jesus cleans us inwardly by changing our heart. Why are we sprinkled with His blood? The blood is for us, not to appease God's wrath. And it would seem it's to change us, make us inwardly clean so that we can obey from the heart and fulfill God's command to love. The blood changes something in us, not God.

[Alex Smith]

Thanks Andrew, I'll read that I totally agree with our need to be reconciled to God, not God to us.

Thanks Jason, both for pointing out that given Jesus is God, everything would've ceased to exist if the God had abandoned God. Also the excellent point that if the Just punishment for sin is really ECT, Jesus should still be stuck in Hell!!!

Thanks Amy for pointing out Hebrews 9:14, that helps a lot

[amy]

Andrew, I know you don't believe in PSA so how do you understand Rom. 3:25 , "because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished." I think this part of the vs. leads people to believe that God was punishing our sin by taking it out on Jesus. I've heard it said before that God had not dealt with turning people from their sin to the point of shedding his own blood. ???? What do you make of it?

[revdrew61]

Amy, Derek Flood tackles exactly those verses in his latest post over at http://www.therebelgod.com/2011/03/gods-restorative-justice.html . I'm being a bit lazy at the end of a long day - but Derek explains it much better than I can! Basically he shows from the context how Paul is contrasting God's restorative justice with the retributive violence that Paul (Saul!) and the rest of us typically engage in. God has refused to engage in retribution and now shows us the better way.

[NealF]

Andrew, I know you don't believe in PSA so how do you understand Rom. 3:25 , "because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished." I think this part of the vs. leads people to believe that God was punishing our sin by taking it out on Jesus. I've heard it said before that God had not dealt with turning people from their sin to the point of shedding his own blood. ???? What do you make of it?

Amy, I know you didn't address this to me, but for what it's worth I'd like to throw in my recent thoughts.

I see a lot of sense in what Jason says (in his linked study) about what "propitiation" means in the Bible. (Although, on a side note, Jason, I question the logic of saying, "if the full and "just" punishment of sinners really is ECT, then Christ should have been hopelessly condemned to ECT." Wouldn't an easy ECT answer be along the lines of, "The just punishment of an infinite sin (a finite being insulting an infinitely holy God) is eternal torment. But because of the infinite value of his sacrifice, Jesus had to spend only a finite amount of time in torment to satisfy God's wrathful desire for eternal suffering." Thoughts?)

Romans 3:25 is traditionally interpreted to mean that humans owe God for their sins, or that God's justice demands some kind of payment from humans, on account of their sins. Until the time that Christ actually made the payment to God, God just graciously considered that payment rendered already.

There seems to be an alternate way of understanding it, though. What if (as JP mentions) we humans need the propitiation? In other words, we need the deliverance from our sins and the consequences thereof (ie, death). God's "forbearance," then, is not in the sense of looking forward to the payment of Christ, but looking forward to Christ's delivering action. This gives God reason to keep us from experiencing the full effects of our sin. I feel like God is looking for excuses to do us good, and He finds it in the sacrifice and victory of Christ. Post-incarnation, Paul can say in Romans 3:25, "Now we know why God had a gracious attitude toward our ancestors--He was looking ahead to Christ's taking care of sin and death once and for all at the cross! Now we can understand this and clearly share this good news with others!" I see a similar attitude in 2 Cor. 5:19--God is not counting mankind's sins against us, because of Christ's work.

That's my general comment on the verse. Specifically on the word "punish," though, (and I think this gets into my recent thoughts towards a non-violent atonement, or at least non-PSA) in order to "fix" the violence of rebellion (ie sin and death), someone has to "swallow up" both the rebellion and its consequences (cf 1 Cor 15:54). Really, only a God-man could do that. God's justice and wrath is satisfied by Jesus' sacrifice, but not necessarily in our retributive-justice sense of punishment. Evil is never defeated by beating on people who've done evil things. Someone needs to step in and make the choice to absorb the evil and overcome it with love. Someone had to be "punished," at least in the sense of "take a momentous beating," to deal with our rebellion, and only God could do that for all humankind. (Oh the depths of the grace and the love of God!)

So that's my recent thoughts on it.

[Alex Smith]

Wouldn't an easy ECT answer be along the lines of, "The just punishment of an infinite sin (a finite being insulting an infinitely holy God) is eternal torment. But because of the infinite value of his sacrifice, Jesus had to spend only a finite amount of time in torment to satisfy God's wrathful desire for eternal suffering."

The are a couple of issues with that answer (Robin, TotalVictory & Jason discussed it: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1331). One is that if that's the case, Christ could have just suffered on the Cross for a nanosecond, and that would have done the trick i.e. why drag it out for 3 days!

[NealF]

Thanks for pointing me to that discussion, Alex! I really like TotalVictory's explanation on that thread.

I agree about the arbitrary choice of 3days/3nights on the cross--why drag it out any longer than necessary? Was it really that important to fulfill the "sign of Jonah," for example?

[JasonPratt]

(Although, on a side note, Jason, I question the logic of saying, "if the full and "just" punishment of sinners really is ECT, then Christ should have been hopelessly condemned to ECT." Wouldn't an easy ECT answer be along the lines of, "The just punishment of an infinite sin (a finite being insulting an infinitely holy God) is eternal torment. But because of the infinite value of his sacrifice, Jesus had to spend only a finite amount of time in torment to satisfy God's wrathful desire for eternal suffering." Thoughts?)

Two infinite 'weights' either cancel one another out or leave an infinite value left over. Infinity laid against infinity either equals zero or equals infinity.

So either the infinite value of Jesus' sacrifice still leaves over the infinite wrath of God, in which case Jesus should still have been punished (unjustly so, but justly, but innocently so unjustly etc.!) with ECT or anni; or the merest singularity of Jesus' (unjust but just but unjust) punishment was sufficient to satisfy "God's" infinite desire for eternal suffering (whether that desire was the Father's alone or also the Son's or whatever), in which case there would have been no crucifixion and indeed no suffering of punishment perceptible to any human any way at any time.

Trying to apply the process as a math operation of infinites is no doubt a category error anyway. But if the penal-sub advocate insists on going that route, the expected result either way still doesn't match what actually happened.

God's "forbearance," then, is not in the sense of looking forward to the payment of Christ [i.e. propitiating God], but looking forward to Christ's delivering action [i.e. propitiating us]. This gives God reason to keep us from experiencing the full effects of our sin. I feel like God is looking for excuses to do us good, and He finds it in the sacrifice and victory of Christ.

If trinitarian theism is true, God needs no special reason or excuse to do us good: the inherent intrinsic self-existent character and characteristic of God is action toward fulfilling fair-togetherness between persons (if ortho-trin is true). God doesn't wait until we are good to love us (as both Paul and John stress in their epistles), but neither does God wait until Christ sacrifices Himself for us. God loves us first, which is explicitly why (in both Paul and John's teaching) the Son is sent to propitiate and to atone us. God smiles on us and leads us to smile on Him, which is the core meaning of the term 'propitiate' in Greek (when the grammatic thrusts are also accounted for); God leans to us first and so leads us to lean toward Him, which is the core meaning of the term in Latin. God reaches down to us first and so leads us to reach up to Him, which is the core meaning of the term for 'at-one-ment' in Greek. God first loves us; everything else follows from that.

If ortho-trin isn't true, then God might on the other hand need some special reason or excuse to do us good! But that still wouldn't change the testimony of Paul and John (among much similar testimony, including in the OT) that God first loves us and so acts to lead us to love God in return. We would just be left with God randomly or at best completely inscrutably choosing to do and to be that way, if there is ultimately no reason why an entity that isn't intrinsically fair-togetherness (righteousness) would bother to act toward fulfilling fair-togetherness (righteousness) between persons.

[NealF]

Jason, I agree with everything you said. I wasn't saying that God NEEDS reasons (or grounds) to do us good, but, because he's predisposed to do us good, from my human perspective he's looking for openings to exercise that goodness in my life. In other words, he loves to use every opportunity to reveal his goodness toward us. I was thinking of the principle revealed in 2 Sam 14:14: "Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him." God is constantly devising ways to be good to us.

So one of Paul's main points in Rom 3:21-26 is that God has finally revealed to us the means by which he justifies (or makes things right): the sacrifice of Christ. For those of us who don't completely understand the awesome implications of ortho-trin thought (such as the OT Hebrews), until we see the deliverance of God manifest in Christ's work (our propitiation), we don't know how it is that God can treat us better than we "deserve" (ie, not letting us fully reap the consequences of our rebellion). I think it's like an inductive argument, though: here's Christ and his work, so we can reason back to God's inherent "fair-togetherness" and desire to bring us into that fair-togetherness. So I agree with you, but maybe from a different angle.

I'd be interested in reading your thoughts (exegetical or otherwise) on Romans 3.

[amy]

Hi Neal, was meaning to get back to this discussion and got overwhelmed other places, plus have been battling a really nasty flu. Now, thankfully we are about to take off for Big Bear. I'm glad you jumped into this discussion, btw.

I noticed you were asking Jason about his view of Rom. 3. Have you had a chance to read this blog already? ... It's all about Romans 3. http://www.therebelgod.com/2011/03/gods ... stice.html I think it was recommended by Andrew earlier in this post. I just now got to reading it and it really has me thinking more than any of Derek's other articles. If you would, read it and tell me if it makes any sense to you.

Will be back in 2 days. Look forward to seeing ya all when I return.