I've been wanting to write about Romans 3:25 for a year or two now, but I never got around to it. I think it actually contains an interesting nugget that strongly goes against Penal Substitution, so it's definitely worth exploring. What recently got my interest was that a Calvinist lady I was talking to online had kept bringing up Romans 3:25 and I just found out another Calvinist that often posts here has written up his own article on Romans 3:25 in support of Penal Substitution. So I take this as a sign that I need to talk about it too!
To quickly jump into it, in most translations Romans 3:24-25 says: "...through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood..." While there isn't anything particularly wrong with this rendering, the 'problem' is that this rendering unfortunately hides the fact that the Greek term for "propitiation" (hilasterion) here is actually a key term that has a unique usage in the Bible. It only appears twice in the New Testament, but the approximately 20 times it appears in the Old Testament, it particularly refers to the "Mercy Seat," which was the "Cover Lid" of the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:17-22; 31:7; 38:5-8; Lev 16:13-15). In fact the only other New Testament reference to hilasterion is Hebrews 9:5 (which contains an important detail about the Day of Atonement), explicitly speaking of the Mercy Seat. So it's most reasonable to say Paul is speaking of the Mercy Seat in Romans 3:25.
But how does this relate to propitiation, which is a term associated with turning away God's wrath? The way I understand it, Hebrew notion of "making atonement" derived from the term "to cover," roughly meaning to cover over an offense by making amends. This is not to be understood as throwing a rug over a dirty floor to hide the filth, but rather something like covering a wound with medication in order to heal the wound. Thus, they apparently connected that notion of "cover" with the "Cover Lid" (Mercy Seat) of the Ark of the Covenant.
The million dollar question to ask is: Did the Mercy Seat fit within the framework of Penal Substitution? If it did, then that would be a significant point in favor of the Protestant position, especially considering Romans 3:21-26 is one of the most important passages of the New Testament. On the flip side, if the Mercy Seat had nothing to do with Penal Substitution, then that's one more nail in the PSub coffin. The only way to really answer that is to see how the Old Testament spoke of the function of the Mercy Seat, which I'll now look at.
Michael (the Calvinist that I mentioned at the start of this article) makes the right connection here by concluding that Paul's mention of "Mercy Seat" in Romans 3:25 was calling to mind the Day of Atonement, since this is the central event where the Mercy Seat is employed. Michael also correctly notes that the Hebrew terms for Mercy Seat, atonement, ransom, redemption, purification, and expiation all stem from the same root-word, meaning they're all related on some level. To me, this alone provides a strong argument against PSub, since ransom/redemption and purification/expiation, along with atonement, never involve transferring punishment. For some reason, Michael doesn't make this connection and assumes Penal Substitution is a valid concept and writes his article as if PSub were a given rather than something to be proven. He even notes that the "redemption" of Romans 3:24 connects to the "propitiation" of Romans 3:25, which again is baffling as to how PSub can be derived from this.
Turning now to the Day of Atonement (which is described in Leviticus 16), it speaks of how the blood of the sacrificed animal was sprinkled on the Mercy Seat:
14 And he [the High Priest] shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the front of the mercy seat on the east side, and in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times. 15 Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. 16 Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.
So the emphasis here on the function of the Mercy Seat is making atonement for the Holy Place, indicating that this (and the Tent) were defiled by being in the presence of sinners. Since atonement is being made for objects, this can only mean making "atonement" on the Mercy Seat refers to cleansing/expiating, not punishing an innocent substitute. This is simlar to the Catholic notion of Satisfaction.
And later on Leviticus 16 continues:
30 For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the Lord from all your sins. 31 It is a Sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it is a statute forever. 32 And the priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father's place shall make atonement, wearing the holy linen garments. 33 He shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly.
This text clearly states the making atonement carries the (at least principal) function of cleansing/expiating, making these things worthy of being in God's presence. The notion of 'expiating' is not simply a cleansing, but solemnly removing all defiling filth. This is the main focus of the sprinkling of blood on the Mercy Seat. Indeed, Hebrews 13 really drives this point home:
11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. 12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.
This text is explicitly referring to the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:27), and the purpose of Jesus suffering in fulfillment of this is to "sanctify" people by His blood. This is the same cleansing/expiating function mentioned earlier. So atonement through the shedding blood is not to be understood as killing for the sake of transferring punishment, but rather for the sake of obtaining a 'cleansing detergent' of sorts. In other words, it's not the death that makes atonement, it's the blood that's taken from that animal that's sprinkled is what expiates/atones.
With this in mind, by using the term "Mercy Seat" in Romans 3:25, Paul was most certainly not suggesting the Cross involved Penal Substitution.
25 comments:
The cross was enough, the text is saying. Jesus has every right to condemn us or to forgive us.
He chose to die for us and to forgive us (His prayer from the cross).
The whole point of the Christian faith is that Jesus and what He has done for sinners on the cross and in your baptism, is enough.
If it isn't...then we are all in a lot of trouble.
Steve, maybe you are in a lot of trouble!
Steve Martin said...
The cross was enough,
We know that. But enough "for what?" is the million dollar question.
the text is saying. Jesus has every right to condemn us or to forgive us.
That is why Jesus is the Just Judge.
He chose to die for us and to forgive us (His prayer from the cross).
But many rejected Him and did not accept His forgiveness. What of those who reject Christ? Are they also forgiven? I remind you what Scripture says:
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
The whole point of the Christian faith is that Jesus and what He has done for sinners on the cross and in your baptism, is enough.
Enough for what? Unless you convert and keep the Commandments of God, it will not be enough for you. It is enough for those who love God to be saved. But not enough for those who do not seek God to be saved. What they need is a conversion of heart.
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
If it isn't...then we are all in a lot of trouble.
Those who disobey Christ are in a lot of trouble. Those of us who obey Christ and seek His love live in an undying hope of glory:
2 Thessalonians 2:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, 17 Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Christianity is more than one or two points! Otherwise, throw out scripture because it wouldn't be necessary. Sometimes complex ideas cannot be broken down further without compromising the integrity of the idea itself.
De Maria,
Enough for all who trust in Him.
He said, "It is finished." And he meant it.
He put all our goodness projects, all our righteousness projects to death, with himself, on that cross.
And now the war is over. Thanks to Jesus.
Anon.,
If I'm in trouble...so are you. If we need to add something to Christ's cross...then we are all in deep doo-doo.
De Maria,
Enough for all who trust in Him.
And obey His Word:
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
He said, "It is finished." And he meant it.
Yes, He did.
He put all our goodness projects, all our righteousness projects to death, with himself, on that cross.
Very good. Without our goodness, we can not attain eternal life:
Hebrews 12:14
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
And now the war is over. Thanks to Jesus.
jAre you saying that you don't sin? Because that is the war we are still waging:
Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
But you must no longer be waging this war:
1 John 1:10
If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Steve Martin said...
Anon.,
If I'm in trouble...so are you. If we need to add something to Christ's cross...then we are all in deep doo-doo.
Colossians 1:24
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1 Peter 4:1
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
It sounds as though you are again contradicting Scripture.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria,
You are such a legalist.
I honestly don't think you'd know the gospel if it hit you in the face.
Good look with your righteousness project.
I'm sure you are doing a great job of things.
Steve Martin said...
De Maria,
You are such a legalist.
Thanks.
I honestly don't think you'd know the gospel if it hit you in the face.
I don't know your gospel. I understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ thoroughly.
Good look with your righteousness project.
Thanks. However, it is God you should thank. It is His plan of salvation:
Hebrews 12:14
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
I'm sure you are doing a great job of things.
You are being awfully kind today. Did you eat a snickers bar?"
Steve,
I've said this other times as well, but it is very annoying when you post here because you post with complete disregard for actual discussion. You either aren't even reading the opening post or you go ahead and post your own agenda anyway. Either way, that's unacceptable.
Your posts typically have no substance to them, not arguments, no exegesis. It ends up being spam, and that's of no help to anyone.
Please stop posting here.
Or Steve, post with substance that *engages in the argument* at least.
Nick, if the Prots are going to use the Day of Atonement as their typological appeal for penal substitution, shouldn't they start with the goat sent to 'Azazel' in the wilderness that had hands laid on it while the priest confesses verbally the sins of all the people over it?
Not the animal that's killed?
Making up your own Jesus without regard to history, tradition or the original Greek is much easier for humanity.
Hi Nick,
The problem with your interpretation of the "mercy seat" in Romans 3:25 is that it depends on an overly narrow interpretation of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. I have no real objection to what you've affirmed. It's what you deny that's problematic. The fact is that the Day of Atonement (Yom kippur) assumes a broader complex of ideas than you're willing to affirm.
You are right that "kippur" means "to cover." But check your lexical sources: "To cover" doesn't "cover" the half of it!
In another article (upon which my Romans 3:25 article depends), I go more deeply into the meaning of kippur in the OT and in Leviticus 16 in particular.
You can read that here:
http://fallibility.blogspot.ca/2013/06/leviticus-16-and-and-penal.html
The point is that kippur not only refers to forgiveness (broadly), but also purgation/cleansing (which you affirm), and quite possibly redemption and propitiation. You can read that article and decide for yourself whether or not I've made the case for these other two meanings of kippur and then whether or not they're also present in Leviticus 16.
I think I have and that is why I think Paul in Romans 3:25 sees the mercy seat as the place where not only forgiveness, redemption and cleansing have been made, but also propitiation, or the turning away of divine wrath that surely would have come upon the sinner (cf, Romans 1:18).
Bottom line: Your entire thesis rests upon excluding/suppressing the evidence for a much richer notion of atonement. You seem to limit the idea to satisfaction/cleansing, but in reality it's a much broader concept.
Nick,
I'm just trying to boil it down to the essential.
I know it is fun for many to strain at gnats and fine-tooth everything.
But I believe it is helpful to get down to the nitty gritty. It helps us from becoming too religious and missing the big picture.
The big picture? The big picture says we are to worship in spirit and in truth. The spirit is ordinary received by (and in conjunction with) baptism and the laying on of hands and annointing with oil from the hands of an apostle or their successor.
The Church--and there is only one built by Christ--is the pillar and foundation of Truth.
If we start there and try to find that worship today, it's not gonna be found in the Full Gospel Holiness Church of God with Signs and Wonders.
The fundamental problem that I see as a novice Catholic and a layman, with penal substitution is that the quantity of punishment for those redeemed was never given to Christ. The deaths and eternities in the lake of fire for billions of people was never a punishment suffered by Christ. Christ didn't absorb this huge blast of wrath from the Father. He, through love, mollified the wrath of the Father against His elect.
Well said Daniel.
People want to shrink God to their level to control him!
Hello Michael,
Good to see we largely agree about the Mercy Seat. I don't deny a 'propitation' element to the Mercy Seat situation, but I would clarify that I don't believe propitation is compatible with PSub since the former refers to turning away wrath without the hero having to take the wrath upon themself.
In reading your article, I don't think you made a good case for wrath being averted in Leviticus, especially not Ch 16. Starting with 16:1-2 isn't strong because the focus is that of desecrating what is holy, not about the actual effects of the Day of Atonement itself. The whole point was that their sin was so grievous that it couldn't be atoned for and required sudden death.
As for the Scapegoat, that didn't have anything to do with the Mercy Seat. I'd say my biggest objection to your comments on the Scapegoat is that you don't even consider that the function could simply have been to 'banish sin' in a figurative sense, like putting your garbage on a truck that carries it off to the dump.
The "cutting off" of an Israelite didn't mean they were sent to the wilderness to die, it simply meant they were excommunicated from the Covenant. They lost their place as one of God's People and were reduced to Gentile status.
As far as "bearing iniquity" goes, you're assuming what you have to prove. The notion of "bearing iniquity" when applied to the Priest in places like Leviticus 10:17 means it's their job to make atonement for the sins of the people, not that the Priest himself becomes guilty.
Hi Nick,
I'm on vacation in a remote part of Canada, and so my access to the internet is sporadic. Let me quickly address your comments here. If time permits, I'll address your latest blog articles as well. My plan was to finish my own series on PSA (or PSUB) and then respond to some of your articles on a case-by-case basis. (The idea was to lay the groundwork for my side of the argument so that I could have an easy point of reference for points that come up repeatedly in your articles. But we'll see if that plan pans out or not....)
You said:
>>Good to see we largely agree about the Mercy Seat. I don't deny a 'propitation' element to the Mercy Seat situation, but I would clarify that I don't believe propitation is compatible with PSub since the former refers to turning away wrath without the hero having to take the wrath upon themself. <<
I'd first need to know exactly what you mean by Psub before I could respond. But it sounds to me like you're saying that unless the mercy seat is in *every way* like the full blown concept of PSA (penal substitutionary atonement), then it isn't like it at all. That's the all or nothing fallacy, which I reject. For me to make my case, I need only show the following:
1. The mercy seat is the place where atonement, redemption, cleansing and forgiveness took place. (I've shown this.)
2. The means by which atonement was made was substitutionary. (I've also shown this, in that an animal died in place of the people.)
3. The atonement in question was penal. (Absolutely, for the animal was in fact killed [thereby receiving the punishment due to another]).
continued....
Hi Nick,
You said>>In reading your article, I don't think you made a good case for wrath being averted in Leviticus, especially not Ch 16. Starting with 16:1-2 isn't strong because the focus is that of desecrating what is holy, not about the actual effects of the Day of Atonement itself.<<
It's both, Nick. What happened to Aaron's sons? Answer: They were killed (quite dramatically) by offering unauthorized fire. (Notice that the manner in which they were killed is exactly the manner in which valid sacrifices were consumed.)
You are quite correct that the issue was desecration. That was the particular sin that caused wrath to fall upon them. Now (in Leviticus 16:1-2) Moses is warning Aaron to take the proper precautions, lest the same thing happen to him! All the prescribed rituals in Leviticus 16 are not only to make atonement for sin, but also to prevent wrath from coming upon the priest and the people that he represents.
You're trying awfully hard not to see wrath-aversion, here Nick. My goodness, Nick, it is God himself who is telling Moses to tell Aaron not to enter the holy of holies, lest the same thing happen to him as happened to his sons. How can this possibly be read as anything other than a warning so as not to incur divine wrath? And if that's the case, then how can the prescribed rituals be anything other than propitiatory?
As an aside, when the author to the Hebrews said, "our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29), I'm thinking he may very well have had the death of Aaron's sons in mind. The point is that wrath is something everyone needs to take seriously. The good news is that such wrath can be averted when we come under the protection that the blood of Christ gives us.
Nick>>The whole point was that their sin was so grievous that it couldn't be atoned for and required sudden death.<<
Nowhere does the text say this, Nick. This is your interpolation. If it's not too much to ask Nick, please distinguish between your speculations and what the text actually says. Thanks.
But the text does give us the strong implication that the reason why Aaron's sons died was because they violated the holiness code (by offering *unauthorized* fire, see Leviticus 10:1-2).
This is why Aaron is given very precise orders to follow in order to be able to *safely* enter the holy of holies. The question you have to ask yourself is this: What was the purpose of those rituals? Hint: There was more than one purpose. But at least one of them was to avert God's wrath that would have otherwise come upon Aaron, just as it came upon Aaron's sons.
Now in addition to averting the wrath that would have come upon Aaron for desecrating God's holiness (as his sons did), Aaron also was to make atonement for himself and the people. It seems to me that you're forcing us to choose between the two functions. But in fact it is both. One of the functions of the Day of Atonement rituals was to avert wrath (propitiation), and another function was to make atonement (which implies not only forgiveness, but also cleansing and redemption).
continued...
continued from before...
Nick said>>As for the Scapegoat, that didn't have anything to do with the Mercy Seat.<<
LOL! Read Leviticus 16. It's all of a piece, Nick. There were two goats and two rituals. But you can't say that one had nothing to do with the other because both were essential parts of the one Day of Atonement. This is all the more true when consider that either goat could have served either purpose (See Leviticus 16:7-8, where lots were cast over the goats.)
Nick>>I'd say my biggest objection to your comments on the Scapegoat is that you don't even consider that the function could simply have been to 'banish sin' in a figurative sense, like putting your garbage on a truck that carries it off to the dump.<<
There's no reason to make that analogy since sin isn't something God merely "banishes"; rather it is something God intends to totally extinguish. If sin is merely "banished," then it's still out there "alive" someplace in the wilderness. No one expected the scapegoat to simply survive on its own, as if it had merely been excommunicated for a time, with the possibility of coming back later. The picture of the scapegoat is that of sin being permanently cut off from the people (thus prefiguring the day in which sin will one day be fully removed from God's people). But for this to happen, sin has to "die." Perhaps the idea of banishing the goat to the wilderness was to symbolize the fact that it takes time to kill off sin. But the expectation is that the goat was going to die bearing the sins of the people, and outside the "camp" of the people. (Sort of reminds me of Jesus dying "outside" the gates of Jerusalem, bearing the sins of his people.)
Nick>>The "cutting off" of an Israelite didn't mean they were sent to the wilderness to die, it simply meant they were excommunicated from the Covenant. They lost their place as one of God's People and were reduced to Gentile status.<<
Which is exactly tantamount to spiritual death, symbolized by the certain physical death that would quickly ensue by being sent into the wilderness. No one was expected to survive excommunication, Nick. Being "cut off," was the same as being sent to your death--both physical and spiritual.
Nick>>As far as "bearing iniquity" goes, you're assuming what you have to prove.<<
How so? Are you denying that the scapegoat bears the iniquity of the people?
continued....
continued from before...
Nick>>The notion of "bearing iniquity" when applied to the Priest in places like Leviticus 10:17 means it's their job to make atonement for the sins of the people, not that the Priest himself becomes guilty.<<
Somehow in your mind this an objection to PSA. It seems like you're attributing to us the view that the guilt of the nation was transferred to the OT priest himself. That isn't true. We don't hold this view. We do hold that, in the hands of the priest, the guilt of the nation was transferred to the scapegoat--not to the priest.
Now here is where it gets interesting and the parallels are not exact. In Christ we have both our high priest and our victim. As Hebrews puts it, he offers "the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 7:27). So in this sense, our guilt is transferred to the High Priest, precisely because the priest is simultaneously the sin offering. But it is Jesus-as-victim to whom the guilt/punishment/curse is transferred. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). Yet at the same time, it is Jesus-as-priest who offers the atoning sacrifice for our sins, namely his own body and blood (of which the Eucharist is the most elegant symbol).
Hopefully you can see how the scapegoat prefigures this aspect (though surely not the totality) of Christ's death. Not only does Jesus die outside the camp (like the scapegoat), but he also bears our iniquity (just like the scapegoat).
So what I'm saying is what all the NT authors have said: Jesus is our Passover lamb (check). Jesus is our high priest (check). Jesus is our mercy seat (check). Jesus is the victim whose blood covers the mercy seat (check). Jesus is the second goat that bears the iniquity of the people outside the camp, thereby fulfilling all aspects of the Day of Atonement rituals (plural), not just he mercy seat ritual (check).
Nick. If there is a heresy going on here, it is yours. You simultaneously affirm the efficacy of Christ's atonement, even as you rob it of its force by making free will the deciding factor in its efficacy. You believe in an Atonement that makes everyone save-able, but which actually saves no one. That's heresy, Nick. Rome teaches it. Protestant Arminianism teaches it.
continued....
continued....
I, on the other hand, get to preach an atonement that actually saves. I get to preach a Jesus who "saves his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). But that's because I believe God has a particular people he intends to save. This is what makes my view (which I daresay is the biblical view) so liberating. I can evangelize with confidence because I know that who ever accepts my message is, like Lydia, one whose heart has been opened by the Lord to hear it and embrace it. And whoever does not accept it is like the very people to whom Isaiah was sent to preach--"so that they would not turn and be healed" (John 12:40).
That's what the true Gospel does (not Rome's false gospel of objective redemption + self-savation by cooperation): It separates the wheat from the chaff. So when people reject the message, I am not dismayed, because I've been given every reason to suppose at the outset that not many will accept it and be saved. But when they do believe, it's because God has given them the faith to believe and repent. And why has God given them this faith in the first place? It is because Jesus has laid down his life for his sheep. Those for whom Christ died are identical to those whom he gives faith in the savior. My role is simply to be instrumental in preaching this good news. (But of course, what is good news for the elect, is in fact bad news for the reprobate.)
The only "good news" you can offer is that if people fulfill certain requirements and avail themselves of the sacraments, then they can be saved, so long as they maintain that salvation by not falling into mortal sin. So the "good news" according to Rome is really bad news--for everything, including the reception of helping graces, depends ultimately on man's willingness to cooperate with grace. That means, at the end of the day, the only difference between those in heaven and those in hell has nothing to do with grace, and everything to do with free will. (That is the most dreadful news I've ever heard. For who could ever stand before a holy God on the basis of his own choices?)
Repent and believe the Gospel (Mark 1:15).
Nick,
In the absence of my library, I've postponed some of the "Psub" articles I have planned and decided to respond to this one in length. Here is the link:
http://fallibility.blogspot.ca/2013/07/a-reply-to-catholic-nick-on-romans-325.html
I hope (if you get around to reading it) that you will see that your case against PSA or "Psub" (I like that) amounts to nothing and is based on both a selective reading of Leviticus 16 and some rather obvious either/or thinking.
You're never going to talk a Calvinist out of Psub with that kind of reasoning since anyone with even half an open mind can see that Leviticus includes the ideas of cleansing and propitiation.
But what you're overlooking is the fact that both cleansing and propitiation (as well as redemption and forgiveness) are the end result of a very "bloody" means--a means which involves not only vicarious suffering, but also penal substitution.
I applaud you for at least being consistent with your system, which is more than I can say for Protestant Arminians who often affirm Psub while simultaneously denying particular redemption. To me, one goes with the other.
I applaud you for at least being consistent with your system, which is more than I can say for Protestant Arminians who often affirm Psub while simultaneously denying particular redemption. To me, one goes with the other.
Unhappily, PSUB doesn't even impli PR, or the L of TULIP. There are a plenty of Calvinists who doesn't concur with you. And even some Divines from Westminster!
Post a Comment