sethproton
Active member
repeat
Last edited:
The so-called "atonement" is recycled pagan "blood magic"
- Thread starter Diserner
- Start date
civic
Well-known member
Penal substitutional theory of the atonement based upon the Fathers anger, retribution, vengeance ( all mean wrath ) towards the Son. It’s unbiblical.
Johann
Well-known member
Already dealt with-and the 4-5-7 different views on PSA.
Diserner
Well-known member
Penal (meaning punishment as a legal judgment)
Substitutionary (meaning vicariously taking the place of)
Atonement (meaning appeasement of wrath for a wrong done)
sethproton
Active member
atonement means to do an action that will soothe anger. When Christ made the atonement He soothed God's anger. The hostility was taken out on Jesus. Why would God vent anger on Jesus if He was not angry at Him?
civic
Well-known member
He didn’t that’s just it. I’ve explained how it’s expiation not propitiation. But you don’t like reading more than a sentence or two. I have a couple well written paragraphs explaining why it’s expiation and not propitiation.
sethproton
Active member
thanks.
civic
Well-known member
No lexicon defines atonement as you did so please quote a reliable source that verifies your above definition.
sethproton
Active member
when I have studied those two words the lexicons say they are two ends of the same action.
Propitiation is the execution of the event. expiation is the result.
A person makes a sacrifice (propitiation} and God's anger is (expiated) soothed
Thayers calls propititation a means of expiating.
Johann
Well-known member
Agree to disagree-
However, it is difficult to take ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν in any sense other than “in place of” in some verses (e.g., Philem 13; John 11:50), and the phrase most likely bears the same sense elsewhere (2 Cor 5:14, 21; and 1 Tim 2:6). ((See Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §91; Harris, “Appendix,” Prepositions, 214-215.)) Likewise, the old covenant backdrop of Galatians 3:13 renders it difficult to take the phrase as indicating anything other than the concept of substitution, with Christ Jesus taking upon himself the curse of the violated covenant in order to redeem his own from the law’s curse. This is how early Christians understood Paul’s text, for Peter Martens demonstrates that “what is often considered a typically Protestant idea—penal substitution—actually played a significant role in early Christian reflection on Jesus’ death,” and that substitutionary atonement derives in part from Paul’s wording in Galatians 3:13. ((Peter W. Martens, “‘Anyone Hung on a Tree is under God’s Curse’ (Deuteronomy 21:23):
Jesus’ Crucifixion and Interreligious Exegetical Debate in Late Antiquity,” Ex Auditu 26 (2010): 71. He states his thesis: “My central concern in this paper is to trace the reception of Paul’s condensed, and perhaps even cryptic, use of Deut 21:23 through several late antique authors [Justin Marty; Augustine; Theodore Abu Qurrah]. . . . These authors provide us a glimpse into the emergence of the early Christian doctrine of Jesus’ vicarious atonement and how it was shaped by a Pauline retrieval of Deut 21:23” (p. 70).))
For example, concerning Justin’s use of Deuteronomy 21:23 in Dialogue with Trypho (mid 2nd cent.), Martens concludes that his use of the Old Testament was shaped by Paul’s use of it in Galatians 3:13 so that “Jesus (the sinless one) vicariously accepted the curses of others who were legitimately under a divine curse. In this way he was at the same time God’s Messiah and the subject of God’s condemnation.”
((Ibid., 75. Martens observes concerning Justin’s reply to Trypho, “While he never refers to Paul’s letter by name in this work, the circumstantial evidence in this section strongly points to Justin’s engagement with Gal 3. First, when he cites Deut 21:23, he tellingly offers a non-Septuagintal reading that coincides with Paul’s rendering of this verse in Gal 3:13 (96.1). Second, Justin retraces the steps in Paul’s argument in Gal 3 by citing, with the apostle, Deut 27:26. For both authors this verse immediately precedes and sets the stage for the difficult claim that Jesus died under a curse” (p. 74).))
Conclusion
The significance of the violator of the old covenant who was executed and then hung upon a pole for exposure is not unlike the mere two mentions of Melchizedek in the Old Testament (Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4). Thus, the theological magnitude of the regulation concerning the practice of hanging the corpse of a covenant breaker is disproportionately greater than its apparent obscurity, being tucked away in a series of case laws in Deuteronomy 21. No prior bearer of the law’s curse could effect permanent removal of that curse, but each one presaged the Coming One who would end both the law and its curse. Thus, the repugnant practice foreshadowed the Coming One. Use of Deuteronomy 21:22-23 in Galatians 3:13 is the keystone of Paul’s argument because it explains how Jesus Christ, who as the Righteous One, would be hung upon a pole as though he were a covenant breaker. Thus, he became a curse in the place of others in order that he might redeem his people from the “curse of the law” and in place of the curse bring blessing, the blessing of Abraham and the giving of the Spirit. By taking the law’s curse upon himself, Jesus removes the law’s sanction, putting an end to the law’s jurisdiction (cf. 4:4). The law as broken covenant required satisfaction; the curse needed to be removed in order that the blessing of Abraham, which entails justification and the Spirit, might be given to Jew and Gentile believers without distinction.
“Anyone Hung Upon A Pole Is Under God’s Curse:” Deuteronomy 21:22-23 in Old and New Covenant Contexts
A very long read.
Shalom
Johann.
civic
Well-known member
Atonement, atone means to cover. It covers sin.
sethproton
Active member
Yes it is the act of covering sin, in this case a violent bloody act and the result is expiation. The two are one act with a result.
civic
Well-known member
There never was any anger from God or the priest towards the animal sacrifice, no wrath.
Please show me a single instance in the OT when it describes the day if atonement or the Passover where God was angered at the animal who’s blood was used to cover/atone , Passover sin/sinner, forgiving sin etc
sethproton
Active member
That is not the OT position.
God said that without the animal sacrifices, He would have to kill the jews, but the sacrifices would soothe His wrath for a time.
Diserner
Well-known member
Atonement is an English word.
civic
Well-known member
It doesn’t say that anywhere in any passage . Jesus stated His death was a Substitution, a Ransom, a Passover, a Sacrifice and for forgiveness of sins- Expiation. Not once did He ever say or hint it was propitiation because the Father needed His anger soothed by Him.
hope this helps !!!
civic
Well-known member
Diserner
Well-known member
Civic wants God to forgive without any wrath for the sin or upholding of God's justice.
So Christ can "forgive" sins without suffering their punishment.
Notice the sacrifices were burned with fire—that represents God's wrath.
Diserner
Well-known member
You can't look up a Hebrew meaning of an English word.
You should really put an effort in to be more precise.
You could say "Look up the word translated as atonement," or something.
civic
Well-known member
Regardless it doesn’t mean what you claim and God was never once says to be angry at the animal sacrifice. It’s a false doctrine from the reformation is what you believe. It didn’t exist prior. It’s a strawman argument based upon a false premise and narrative.
