Propitiation and Penal Substitution's Validity

[RICHinCHRIST]

I was speaking with the pastor of a church I attend last week about the different views of the atonement. He holds the penal substitution view. I wanted to listen to what he said with an open mind, even though I was honest with him that I have some doubts about the view myself. His main argument was from Romans 3:25-26 and what the word "propitiation" means. He said that propitiation means, "the satisfaction of a party's anger (in this instance, God) through sacrifice". This sounded way too much like an interpretation than a translation of the word. I thought about it for a second, and said, "wait, doesn't it just mean atonement?" And what atonement means is what is being debated. If propitiation clearly meant what he said, then there would be no question on what the atonement signified, and therefore everyone would hold to penal substitution.

I looked up the word in my Spiros Zodhiates Greek NT Word Study book, and it said that it means "a mercy seat", or "the place where sin is placed, not to be spoken of the expiatory sacrifice itself". Satisfying wrath is not necessarily implied in the definition of the word whatsoever. But it would appear that the idea of substitution is there, since the mercy seat was where the blood was sprinkled by the high priest, and since the OT sacrifices were always meant to be a substitute. And I found it interesting that it said it was not in reference to the sacrifice itself, but to the place of the sacrifice. In essence, in Romans 3 and Hebrews 9:5 it is being said that Jesus was the mercy seat. That SIN was placed upon Him. Not wrath, but sin. It could be seen that Jesus absorbed sin itself, and through His death destroyed it. There is no need to import God the Father's anger into this picture.


His interpretation was basically that God overlooked His anger toward sin because He looked forward to pouring out His anger on Jesus in the first century. This demonstrates God's justice, he said, because God must punish sin in order to remain just.

But my question was, why must God demand a penalty be paid in order to forgive us? Wouldn't that mean that the sin was never really forgiven, but that Jesus just took the penalty for us? How could it be said that God forgave us if this guilt was just transferred to His Son? Isn't forgiveness the releasing of a debt, not the transfer of it to another party?

These verses also just may be saying that Jesus' death was the fulfillment of God's righteousness (or as NT Wright puts it, God's "covenant faithfulness") in bringing in the fulfillment of His redemptive plan through Christ. The idea of penal substitution is not necessitated by the verses themselves. They are only interpreted as penal substitution when the idea of penal substitution is imported into the text.

His other argument was that God 'turned away His face' from Jesus on the cross, evidenced by Jesus' cry, "My God My God why have you forsaken me?"

I could see this being a viable deduction if we assume the penal substitution view, but why must we see this as the Father turning His face away? Could it not have been that Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 in order to enlighten His audience that its ultimate fulfillment was happening in their midst? I see no reason why I must import the idea of God "turning away His face" from Jesus and inflicting all of His heavenly rage on His Son in some form of "just" cosmic child abuse. Also, in the original context of psalm 22, David may have thought that he was abandoned by God, but he wasn't. Just because one feels abandoned by God, doesn't mean they are abandoned by Him. Perhaps Jesus felt abandoned, as any frail human would in his situation, but maybe God the Father was there giving Him strength all along to endure and finish His course and defeat sin, the devil, and the curse.

His final argument was the fact that Jesus asked for the cup to be taken away from Him. His argument was that the cup, all throughout Scripture, IN EVERY INSTANCE, is a picture of God's wrath against the ungodly. I did research this, and it is true that the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, as well as the psalms, speak of the cup of God's fury. But in my word search on cup, I came across an interesting passage:


Here Jesus is speaking of the cup He will drink, and the baptism He will be baptized with. I think this is only in reference to the suffering He would have to endure, with no reference to Him enduring the Father's wrath. Why? Because as clear as day in verse 23 Jesus states that His disciples will ALSO DRINK THE CUP He will drink. Of course, we cannot say that the disciples too would drink the cup of God's wrath if Jesus drank it for them! Therefore, I have no reason to interpret the cup which Jesus drank as a symbol of God's wrath, but rather as a symbol of the suffering and hardship He would endure, which the disciples, in their martyrdom, surely experienced as well.

I asked him if there were any other reasons or scripture verses in which to interpret penal substitution. These were the reasons He gave me (perhaps he has more when we further our discussion).

The only other I can think of is Isaiah 53:10 where it says it "pleased the LORD to bruise him...". This is also ambiguous, and wrath is not mentioned in this verse. All that is mentioned is that God was pleased to bruise Him. In penal substitution, God is the one doing the bruising in His active punishment of wrath. In Christus Victor, it could be seen as God "allowing" Jesus to be bruised by the principalities and powers, even the devil himself, so that Christ might destroy death and its king through death itself. God would still be sovereign over the demons bruising Jesus, so it could still be said that God is the one bruising since He is sovereign over the principalities and powers He gave His Son up to.

These, as far as I know, are the only arguments I've encountered for penal substitution. I don't see why I must see it in the Bible at all. Perhaps someone here could help me see more clearly.

[Paidion]

Rich, I am glad you are questioning the penal substitution view. I not only question it, but I affirm it to be patently FALSE!

The Greek word incorrectly translated in Romans 3:25 as "propitiation" (in English characters) is "hilastārion".

Some translations render the word as "expiation", a word which means much the same as "atonement." Both English words mean "restitution". If you have done me wrong, and I say, "You are going to have to atone for that," I mean that you are going to have to make up for what you did. If you damaged my property, I may require you to pay for the damage. However, I don't think this is the meaning of "hilastārion" either.

"Hilastārion" is the very word which is translated as "mercy seat" in Hebrews 9:5.

The verbal form of this word is "hilaskomai" and is translated as "be merciful" in Luke 18:13 ("God be merciful to me, a sinner.")

I suggest that "hilastārion" ought to be translated as "a means of mercy."