Penal Substitution.....?

RussT · Jun 4, 2006

Im new to CF, and have enjoyed reading the comments regarding the penal substitution atonement. A few observations I have are the following:
1) There is not a single verse in all of the N.T. that says, Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, or that God punished Jesus in our place, or believe in Jesus death and you will be saved. In fact, reference to penalty, or punishment are extremely rare, which would be remarkable if in fact this were the primary meaning of the atonement.
2) The Greek preposition, anti, which can mean instead of, 'in the place of, in exchange for is only used prepositionally once in relation to the atonement, in Jesus statement that He did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom(lutron) in exchange for(anti) the many. Matt. 20:28, Mk.10:45 Paul uses it once as a prefix in 1 Tim. 2:6,Christ Jesus, the one having given Himself as a ransom(antilutron) on behalf of all,. In all other cases dealing with atonement themes, the word, huper, is used, which has the meaning of on behalf of, in the interest of. Again, this would be remarkable if in fact the primary reason for the atonement was that Jesus had to die instead of us, that God had to punish Him in our place.
3) One of the main reasons for a penal view of the atonement rests on the premise that God cannot forgive without someone paying a penalty. This is inconsistent with numerous passages in both O.T. and N.T.: some of the N.T. passages have I think already been mentioned on this thread in the forum, most notably Jesus parables of the unmerciful slave (Matt.18:21-35), and the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). In the O.T., the most incontrovertible passage is probably found in Ezek. 18:21-32. But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he committed and observes all my statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live. Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the LORD God, is it not that he should turn from his ways and live?
4) Justice and mercy are not opposites; rather, it is wrath and anger that are opposites to mercy. It is precisely because God is just and righteous that He shows mercy to repentant sinners, and wrath to those who are unrepentant. Thus, Jeremiah can say, Correct me O LORD, but with justice; not with Your anger, lest You bring me to nothing. (Jer. 10:24), and again, Righteous are You, O LORD, that I would plead my case with You; indeed, I would discuss matters of justice with You; Why has the way of the wicked prospered?.But You know me, O LORD; You see me; and You do examine my hearts attitude toward You. (Jer. 12:1-3). David says,Judge me O LORD, according to my righteousness and my integrity that is in me. O let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish the righteous; for the righteous God tries the hearts and minds. My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart. (Psalms 7:8-10)

cygnusx1 · Jun 4, 2006

RussT said:
I’m new to CF, and have enjoyed reading the comments regarding the ‘penal substitution atonement’. A few observations I have are the following:
1) There is not a single verse in all of the N.T. that says, “Jesus paid the penalty for our sins”, or that ‘God punished Jesus in our place”, or ‘believe in Jesus’ death and you will be saved’. In fact, reference to ‘penalty’, or ‘punishment’ are extremely rare, which would be remarkable if in fact this were the primary meaning of the atonement.
2) The Greek preposition, ‘anti‘, which can mean ‘instead of’, 'in the place of’, ‘in exchange for’ is only used prepositionally once in relation to the atonement, in Jesus’ statement that He “did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom(’lutron&#8217 in exchange for(‘anti’) the many.” Matt. 20:28, Mk.10:45 Paul uses it once as a prefix in 1 Tim. 2:6,”…Christ Jesus, the one having given Himself as a ransom(‘antilutron’) on behalf of all,…”. In all other cases dealing with atonement themes, the word, ’huper’, is used, which has the meaning of ‘on behalf of’, ‘in the interest of’. Again, this would be remarkable if in fact the primary reason for the atonement was that Jesus had to die instead of us, that God had to punish Him in our place.
.............

so how many times must the NEW TESTAMENT say Propititate before you accept the idea ???

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a "propitiation" (sacrifice of atonement - NRSV) by his blood, effective through faith (Romans 3.25).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the "propitiation" (atoning sacrifice - NRSV) for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (I John 2.1-2)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the "propitiation" (atoning sacrifice - NRSV) for our sins. Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another (I John 4.10-11). [/FONT]

welcome to CF

depthdeception · Jun 4, 2006

cygnusx1 said:
so how many times must the NEW TESTAMENT say Propititate before you accept the idea ???

As you are potentially aware, words do not have objective meanings--rather, they are linguistic symbols which are deployed by writers and speakers to communicate a certain message. However, even this is not an objective process, for the interpreter/hearer also infuses the same words with meanings which may or may not correlate to the author's intent. THerefore, simply because the word "propitiate" is found in a translation of the Scriptures (whichi itself calls into question your assertion about the word) does not mean that such presence of "X" word substantiates a particular theological concept.

This is elementary stuff, yet you continue to run aground on it.

heymikey80 · Jun 4, 2006

Yet Paul says fairly often that Jesus died for sinners, and at one point compares it with dying for someone who is righteous.

I'm all for the point that justice and mercy aren't opposites. I don't see justice as a scorekeeper. But I do see justice requiring penalty. And I see that penalty handed down to me, being endured by Jesus.

But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him. Is 53:5-6

inchristalone221 · Jun 4, 2006

As you are potentially aware, words do not have objective meanings--rather, they are linguistic symbols which are deployed by writers and speakers to communicate a certain message. However, even this is not an objective process, for the interpreter/hearer also infuses the same words with meanings which may or may not correlate to the author's intent.

But the meaning is objective and it is in the author's intent not the readers bias. So I would ask why you think the translation propitiate is a bad one in those particular cases.

RussT · Jun 5, 2006

cygnusx1 said:
cygnusx1 said:

so how many times must the NEW TESTAMENT say Propititate before you accept the idea ???

Click to expand...

There are three Greek words, one verb and two nouns, that are used in the N.T. regarding propitiation. The verb, hilaskomai occurs twice, in Luke 18:13, where the tax collector and the Pharisee go to the temple to pray and the tax collector asks God to be propitious towards him, and in Heb. 2:17, where the author says that Christ had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. In neither of these cases is God the object of the verb, which differs from the secular Greek usage of the verb whereby an angry God was to be propitiated and God was the object of the verb.
The noun, hilasterion, is also used twice. In Heb.9:5, it obviously carries the meaning of the mercy-seat which was on top of the ark in the holy of holies, and was the place where the high priest sprinkled the blood on the Day of Atonement(Lev.16:11-14). This was also the place where God met with Moses(Ex. 25:22, Num. 7:89). The second occurrence of hilasterion, is in Rom.3:25, which literally reads in the Greek, (Christ Jesus) whom set forth God a propitiation through faith en(in, with, or by) the blood of him,. There is general disagreement as to whether it should be translated as mercy-seat, or that which makes expiation, or propitiation, with reputable scholars arguing on the side of each.
The third word, hilasmos is used twice by John in his first epistle, chap. 2:2 and chap.4:10. In 1 Jn. 1:10-2:2, there is a parallel with 1 Jn. 1:6-7, and 1 Jn. 1:8-9, in that vss. 6,8, 10 talk about our deception and lies in saying we have fellowship when we still walk in darkness, and that we have no sin when we do. These vss. are then followed by, if we walk in the light, if we confess our sins, and if anyone sins, and the resultant consequences/blessings/helps of we have fellowshipand the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, and we have an advocate(paraclete, one called alongside to help) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is a propitiation concerning our sins. I dont see where this leads inexplicably to the penal form of atonement. In 1 Jn. 4:10, God is the subject, not the object of hilasmos; He is the one who sent Christ into the world to be a propitiation concerning our sins. Christs death did not somehow enable God to be gracious to us; His sending His Son presupposed His graciousness. It was not God who could not look on Adam & Eve after they sinned, it was they who hid from God. It was not God who could not bear to look on Moses face to face when He had Moses hide in the crevice while He passed, it was Moses who could not look on the face of God. It was not Jesus who wanted Peter to depart when Peter realized how much of a sinner he was, it was Peter who wanted the Lord to depart from him.

cygnusx1 · Jun 5, 2006

RussT said:
There are three Greek words, one verb and two nouns, that are used in the N.T. regarding ‘propitiation’. The verb, ‘hilaskomai’ occurs twice, in Luke 18:13, where the tax collector and the Pharisee go to the temple to pray and the tax collector asks God ‘to be propitious’ towards him, and in Heb. 2:17, where the author says that Christ “had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, ‘to make propitiation for’ the sins of the people.” In neither of these cases is God the object of the verb, which differs from the secular Greek usage of the verb whereby an angry God was to be propitiated and God was the object of the verb.
The noun, ‘hilasterion’, is also used twice. In Heb.9:5, it obviously carries the meaning of ‘the mercy-seat’ which was on top of the ark in the holy of holies, and was the place where the high priest sprinkled the blood on the Day of Atonement(Lev.16:11-14). This was also the place where God met with Moses(Ex. 25:22, Num. 7:89). The second occurrence of ‘hilasterion’, is in Rom.3:25, which literally reads in the Greek, (Christ Jesus) “whom set forth God a propitiation through faith ‘en’(in, with, or by) the blood of him,”. There is general disagreement as to whether it should be translated as ‘mercy-seat’, or ‘that which makes expiation’, or ‘propitiation’, with reputable scholars arguing on the side of each.
The third word, “hilasmos’ is used twice by John in his first epistle, chap. 2:2 and chap.4:10. In 1 Jn. 1:10-2:2, there is a parallel with 1 Jn. 1:6-7, and 1 Jn. 1:8-9, in that vss. 6,8, 10 talk about our deception and lies in saying we have fellowship when we still walk in darkness, and that we have no sin when we do. These vss. are then followed by, ‘if we walk in the light’, ‘if we confess our sins’, and ‘if anyone sins’, and the resultant consequences/blessings/helps of ‘we have fellowship…and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin’, ‘He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’, and ‘we have an advocate(‘paraclete’, one called alongside to help) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is a propitiation concerning our sins’. I don’t see where this leads inexplicably to the ‘penal’ form of atonement. In 1 Jn. 4:10, God is the subject, not the object of ‘hilasmos’; He is the one who sent Christ into the world to be a propitiation concerning our sins. Christ’s death did not somehow enable God to be gracious to us; His sending His Son presupposed His graciousness. It was not God who could not look on Adam & Eve after they sinned, it was they who hid from God. It was not God who could not bear to look on Moses face to face when He had Moses hide in the crevice while He passed, it was Moses who could not look on the face of God. It was not Jesus who wanted Peter to depart when Peter realized how much of a sinner he was, it was Peter who wanted the Lord to depart from him.

why you would show only one side of the "story" is a mystery to me Russ.

"Jehovah our God hides Himself; but reveals Himself to us and to our
children forever, to do all the Words of this Law." (De29:29)

"Behold, Jehovah’s hand is not shortened, that it CANNOT
save; nor is His ear heavy, that it CANNOT hear. But your iniquities
have separated between you and your God, and your sins have HIDDEN His
face from you, that He WILL NOT hear." (Is59:1-2)

" Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me." Psalm 51:11

“Behold, I go forward, but He is not there; and backward, but I cannot perceive Him: on the lift hand, where He doth work, but I cannot behold Him: He hideth Himself on the right hand, that I cannot see Him: but He knoweth the way that I take: when He hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold.” (Job 23: 8-10).

"Therefore it has come to
pass that, just as He called, and they would not hear; so they called,
and I did not hear, says Jehovah of Hosts." (Zec7:13)

depthdeception · Jun 5, 2006

inchristalone221 said:
But the meaning is objective and it is in the author's intent not the readers bias.

Regardless of whether it is possible for "meaning" to be objective or not (and I would lean towards the latter), it is irrelevant. As interpreters, it is impossible for us to fully capture the author's intent, not only because we are removed existentially and ontologically from their contexts, but moreover because an author's intent is never fully exhausted in what the author herself writes. Therefore, there are multiple levels upon which an "objective" meaning to any texts is epistemologically inaccessible, not only to the reader, but even to the writer.

So I would ask why you think the translation propitiate is a bad one in those particular cases.

I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing. All I'm saying is that often in translation, one has to make theological choices about the words which one will use to convey an idea. In the process of translation, there is always the inevitable danger that the translator's theological biases will find their way into the finished translated text. Therefore, the mere presence of the word "propitiate" does not, in any way, conclusively prove that the NT teaches PSA theory--rather, it reveals that the translator's of that particular version did, or at least had the categories of PSA theory in the background. Whether this is valid or not, however, is the real question.

RussT · Jun 5, 2006

cygnusx1 said:
why you would show only one side of the "story" is a mystery to me Russ.

Click to expand...

One of the main points of the 'penal atonement' theory is that God can not forgive sin without punishment being meted out, that His holiness is such that He cannot stand to look on evil. The point I was trying to make is that it is not God that cannot bear to be around evil, nor is it that He cannot forgive without punishing someone. It is true that if He desired to punish us for our sins, none of us could accuse Him of being unjust, but He is a gracious and compassionate God who freely forgives those who turn away from their sins and serve Him in spirit and in truth. David states this very thing in Ps.130:3-4, "If You, Lord, should mark iniquities, O LORD, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with You, that You may be feared."(NASB)

I don't mean to imply that there is only one 'side'. I have no quarrel with God hiding His face from those who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge Him as God or from those who continually refuse to listen to Him and obey His commands. The idea which I have a quarrel with is that God cannot but hide His face from any and all who have sinned.

"

Behold, Jehovahs hand is not shortened, that it CANNOT

save; nor is His ear heavy, that it CANNOT hear. But your iniquities
have separated between you and your God, and your sins have HIDDEN His
face from you, that He WILL NOT hear." (Is59:1-2)

Click to expand...

I would see this passage as supporting the point I was trying to make.

" Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me." Psalm 51:11

Click to expand...

And we know that David's earnest prayer for mercy was answered and he was not cast from God's presence.

Behold, I go forward, but He is not there; and backward, but I cannot perceive Him: on the lift hand, where He doth work, but I cannot behold Him: He hideth Himself on the right hand, that I cannot see Him: but He knoweth the way that I take: when He hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold. (Job 23: 8-10).

Click to expand...

Job, in the depths of pain and despair, feels God is hiding from him. However, in chapters 38-42, God reveals Himself to Job, and Job responds with these words in 42:3, "...therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." In 42:5, "I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees Thee."

"Therefore it has come to
pass that, just as He called, and they would not hear; so they called,
and I did not hear, says Jehovah of Hosts." (Zec7:13)[/

Click to expand...

quote]

Verses 9-12 give the reason why God would not hear; namely, the Jews refused to pay attention to God's words, they turned a stubborn shoulder, they stopped their ears from listening, they made their hearts like flint. The implication is that if they had not done those things, God would not have ceased to hear.

Penal Substitution.....?

RussT

Member

More options

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....

More options

depthdeception

Well-Known Member

More options

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

More options

inchristalone221

Californian Theology Student

More options

RussT

Member

More options

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....

More options

depthdeception

Well-Known Member

More options

RussT

Member

More options

Similar threads

Penal Substitution.....?

Member

Jacob the twister.....

Well-Known Member

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Californian Theology Student

Member

Jacob the twister.....

Well-Known Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency