IN THE WORDS OF JESUS–Part 298

• Christ was a substitute for others in that he took their place and suffered their punishment. It was also a legal act whereby Christ fulfilled the law and lawfully paid the penalty of sin**.
• Clearly, Jesus was a substitution in that he was made sin on our behalf. Just as the RAM was offered as a substitute for Isaac, Christ was offered in substitution for us. This is why the Bible says he became sin on our behalf, that he was delivered because of our transgressions, that he bore our griefs, carried our sorrows, was pierced for our transgressions, and was crushed for our iniquities**.
• The word propitiation “properly signifies the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift.”Propitiation properly deals with the wrath of God. The wrath of God is due to the legal requirements of punishing the sinner. Remember, the sinner is someone who has broken the law of God; hence, the legality of punishment, and since Jesus is our propitiation and turns away the lawful wrath of God, we have further evidence that Christ’s sacrifice was to avert God’s righteous wrath against us, the sinners. Since the law of God must be met and cannot be ignored, it is proper that the law be fulfilled. Jesus is the one who fulfilled the law and never sinned (1 Pet. 2:22). But, he bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21) thereby suffering the penalty of sin, which is death**.
• In addition to Christ’s atonement being vicarious, it was also legal. Legality deals with the law. Sin is breaking the law of God. When a law is broken, a punishment is incurred. There is no punishment without law and there is no law without punishment. When a person is sentenced to time in prison, this is done based upon the requirements of the law. The required sentence upon one who breaks the law of God is death**.

• “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past , through the forbearance of God” (Romans 3:25). As we have said of other verses that are stated in this way, this is a difficult saying to interpret. On the face of it is does appear that it corresponds with the thoughts of the church and this is likely one of the main sources of this doctrine but, with some help from Vincent, we should be able to understand this more clearly. Vincent’s words on this are lengthy and we will just take from them what is directly attributable to our subject line; for any who want the full understanding of Vincent thoughts, they can be found near the bottom of the page at http://www.godrules.net/library/vincent/vincentrom3.htm. Vincent tells us:

1. Propitiation (ilasthrion). This word is most important, since it is the key to the conception of Christ’s atoning work. In the New Testament it occurs only here and Heb. ix. 5; and must be studied in connection with the following kindred words: iJlaskomai which occurs in the New Testament only Luke xviii. 13, God be merciful, and Heb. ii. 17, to make reconciliation. Ilasmov twice, 1 John ii. 2; iv. 10; in both cases rendered propitiation⁴.
2. This term has been unduly pressed into the sense of explanatory sacrifice. In the case of the kindred verbs, the dominant Old-Testament sense is not propitiation in the sense of something offered to placate or appease anger; but atonement or reconciliation, through the covering, and so getting rid of the sin which stands between God and man. The thrust of the idea is upon the sin or uncleanness, not upon the offended party. Hence the frequent interchange with ajgiazw to sanctify, and kaqarizw to cleanse. See Ezekiel xliii. 26, where ejxilasontai shall purge, and kaqariousin shall purify, are used coordinately. See also Exod. xxx. 10, of the altar of incense: “Aaron shall make an atonement (exilasetai) upon the horns of it – with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement” (kaqarismou purification). Compare Lev. xvi. 20. The Hebrew terms are also used coordinately⁴.
3. In the Old Testament the idea of sacrifice as in itself a propitiation continually recedes before that of the personal character lying back of sacrifice, and which alone gives virtue to it. See 1 Sam. xv. 22; Psalm xl. 6-10; l. 8-14, 23; li. 16, 17; Isa. i. 11-18; Jer. vii. 21-23; Amos v. 21-24; Micah vi. 6-8. This idea does not recede in the Old Testament to be reemphasized in the New. On the contrary, the New Testament emphasizes the recession, and lays the stress upon the cleansing and life-giving effect of the sacrifice of Christ. See John i. 29; Colossians i. 20-22; Heb. ix. 14; x. 19-21; 1 Pet. ii. 24; 1 John i. 7; iv. 10-13. The true meaning of the offering of Christ concentrates, therefore, not upon divine justice, but upon human character; not upon the remission of penalty for a consideration, but upon the deliverance from penalty through moral transformation; not upon satisfying divine justice, but upon bringing estranged man into harmony with God. As Canon Westcott remarks: “The scripture conception of iJlaskesqai is not that of appeasing one who is angry with a personal feeling against the offender, but of altering the character of that which, from without, occasions a necessary alienation, and interposes an inevitable obstacle to fellowship “(Commentary on St. John’s Epistles, p. 85)⁴.
4. In the light of this conception we are brought back to that rendering of iJlasthrion which prevails in the Septuagint, and which it has in the only other New-Testament passage where it occurs (Heb. ix. 5) – mercy-seat; a rendering, maintained by a large number of the earlier expositors, and by some of the ablest of the moderns. That it is the sole instance of its occurrence in this sense is a fact which has its parallel in the terms Passover, Door, Rock, Amen, Day-spring, and others, applied to Christ. To say that the metaphor is awkward counts for nothing in the light of other metaphors of Paul. To say that the concealment of the ark is inconsistent with set forth is to adduce the strongest argument in favor of this rendering. The contrast with set forth falls in perfectly with the general conception. That mercy-seat which was veiled, and which the Jew could approach only once a fear, and then through the medium of the High-Priest, is now brought out where all can draw nigh and experience its reconciling power (Heb. x. 19, 22; compare Heb. ix. 8). “The word became flesh and dwelt among us. We beheld His glory. We saw and handled” (John i. 14; 1 John i. 1-3). The mercy-seat was the meetingplace of God and man (Exod. xxv. 17-22; Lev. xvi. 2; Num. vii. 89); the place of mediation and manifestation. Through Christ, the antitype of the mercy-seat, the Mediator, man has access to the Father (Eph. ii. 18). As the golden surface covered the tables of the law, so Christ stands over the law, vindicating it as holy and just and good, and therewith vindicating the divine claim to obedience and holiness. As the blood was annually sprinkled on the golden cover by the High-Priest, so Christ is set forth “in His blood,” not shed to appease God’s wrath, to satisfy God’s justice, nor to compensate for man’s expediences, but as the highest expression of divine love for man, taking common part with humanity even to death, that it might reconcile it through faith and self-surrender to God⁴.

• “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments” (1 John 2:1-2).
• “…for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another”  (1 John 4:8-11).
• “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:  Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we , being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (1 Peter 2:21-25).

This daily blog also has a Quote of the Day which may not be in any way related to the essay. Many of these will be from the Bible and some just prayers or meditations that may have an influence on you and are in line with the subject matter of this blog. As the quote will change daily and will not store with the post, it is repeated in this section with the book reference and comment.

To the God Who is in the Fire and Who is in the waters;

To the God Who has suffused Himself through all the world;

To the God Who is in summer plants and in the lords of the forest;

To that God be adoration, adoration.

Sh’vet Upanishad, II.17.

Sunday, April 22 is Earth day. This is a day of celebration about our Earth that has in so many ways been politicized. For our celebration of Earth Day we offer the above prayer and invocation from ancient Hindu scriptures. There are many forces at play in the minds of men regarding the Earth which create many opinions and we should ever remember that all of what we hear is but opinion; the greater understanding we do not have and likely can not have right now. In America there is the political left and the political right; the left seems interested in the environment and its care and is at times over zealous regarding it, the right seems uninterested and even at times in denial of some of the basic facts, regarding capital and investment as of more importance. The forces of religion seem to come down more on the right while the more secular world seems more on the left and in this we can see a sort of a dichotomy. Both sides do suffer from a lost sense of proportion and from the illusion, glamour and deception that is a strong part of the arguments of each. There is in the center within these debates a Path of Truth and it awaits humanities ability to find it; it is not found in controversy, in the us against them mentality; it is not found in whatever one’s side believes to be True about the nature of Life or the nature of our planet Earth as neither side Truly KNOWS; it is found in mutual cooperation, in honest give and take and in Common Sense. If we put large tracts of land off limits because of the presence of possible presence of a near extinct frog, who are we serving? Likely millions of species have gone extinct in the history of this planet and likely too it is a part of the evolution of Life itself. If we haphazardly allow drilling for oil and gas without the proper cautions and research because of the monetary reward for the few, who do are we serving? Certainly not those whose water supplies are fouled or whose beaches are ruined. We should not take extinction lightly and we should care for those that we can prudently care for and protect from poachers and vandals but at the same time we must understand that we cannot protect every species and sub-species from the natural progress of man. At the same time we must understand that we need oil and gas and that as long as reasonable precautions are taken and as long as we refrain from turning all of the pristine parts of this Earth into drilling fields, we should allow and encourage such exploration.  These two opposing ideas are of course just examples.