Salvation Big Words Number 6 Part 3

INTRO:-

Allow us today to do some exegetical stuff on the subject of propitiation

1. Select exegetical texts on propitiation

The following texts will be investigated in order to unlock the understanding of the original audience of the Bible as to what they meant (i.e., the ‘author-intended meaning’).

Knowledge of the author-intended meaning is important because it aids in correct interpretation and accurate understanding.

If an accurate understanding from the Old Testament text can be ascertained, then this will be advantageous in correctly understanding the author-intended meaning in the New Testament as well. This is vital, as it will be shown that there is a direct connection between the Old Testament kāpar word group and the New Testament hilask- word group and this will be useful to the argument.

Examining the sacrificial symbols and language of Leviticus will provide a valuable background for the interpretation of New Testament texts, particularly regarding Romans and Hebrews which relies heavily upon an understanding of the Old Testament sacrificial system (van Gemeren in Elwell 2001:19101).

In support of this, Allman (2015:351) writes that the hilask- word group appears 117 times in the Hebrew Bible.

One sixth of these appearances occurs in passages of restriction in Leviticus chapters 4 (the sin offering), Lev 4: 12-15-16 (purity regulations) and 16 (Day of Atonement), while Leviticus as a whole accounts for over 40 percent of its appearances.

1.1 Kāpar: Leviticus 16

The Old Testament kāpar word group meaning “I, make atonement, make reconciliation, purge” is the equivalent of the New Testament hilask- word group (Harris, Gleason and Waltke 2003:452). The kāpar word group comprises kippūr meaning “atonement”, kōper, meaning “ransom”, and kappōret meaning “mercy seat”. The kāpar word group will be examined mostly from Leviticus 16 which deals with the most the pivotal offering in the Jewish calendar, that is, the sin offering made on the Day of Atonement or Yom kippūr.

1.1.1 Kippūr: atonement

The Hebrew word kippūr means “atonement” and is the word used in Leviticus 16 twelve times (Harris et al. 2003:452). The literary context in which atonement is located within Leviticus is the major theme of Israel’s state of ritual cleanness or uncleanness. Being (un)clean directly relates to the topic of holiness and finds its culmination in Leviticus which details how to become clean after one has become unclean (Sprinkle 2000:637). The central place to become ritually clean was the tabernacle or temple which was a sacred space. The tabernacle, however, could not be permitted to become unclean because a holy God lived there (Harris 2003:788). After the ill conduct of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10), God set up the full priestly order and Aaron was told immediately to make a sacrifice, and how to offer it (Lev. 16) (Milgrom 1991[1923]:1080). This special sacrifice was to be made once a year on a day that would be known as “The Day of Atonement” (Lev. 23:27). The Day of Atonement would be when the high priest would offer the sacrifice and all the sins of the Israelites could be atoned for (Lev. 16:17, 24). This teaching on holiness would later serve as valuable ground work for Jesus Christ and the New Covenant (Gal 3:23-24). It will be valuable for an understanding of the rest of the essay to briefly give an account of the Day of Atonement. In order for the high priest not to perish, he would offer incense on the fire of the incense altar so that a cloud of incense would cover the mercy seat (Lev. 16:13). Then the high priest would sacrifice a bull for his own, and his family’s iniquities (Lev. 16:6). He would then sprinkle the blood of the bull on the mercy seat in the Most Holy Place (v. 14) and then on the horns of the altar (v. 18). Next he would place two goats before the tent of meeting, one for the LORD and one for Azazel[1](v. 8). The goat for the Lord would be offered as a sin offering and its blood would be sprinkled on the mercy seat and horns of the altar (v. 15). The high priest would then place his hands on the head of the scapegoat and confess the sins of Israel and send it off into the wilderness (v. 21). The high priest would then come back and make a burnt offering (v. 24). Erickson (1989:805) notes the objective effect of the blood sacrifice which was sprinkled on the mercy seat. As can be seen, the blood sacrifice was a key aspect of the Day of Atonement ritual. Some theorists like Bell (2009:40) boldly proclaim that no Christian ever “endorsed” blood sacrifice, and that such a construct is used simply to justify war and capital punishment. Bell negatively calls penal-substitution a theory of “redemptive violence”. Bell pointedly states that God does not require blood to redeem us (p. 41), and that Christ’s work on the cross is not a “cover” for redemptive violence (p. 53). Instead, he maintains that Jesus does not offer himself for our sin, but rather offers himself as our substitute so that we can receive life (p. 60). This is not true, as it is blood that represents life in the Bible (Heb. 9:22). It is truly Jesus’ life that redeems us and covers our sin. Bell continually asserts that it is the act of violence and suffering that redeems someone according to the penal-substitution theory. Bell (p. 44) also implies that people who hold to the penal-substitution theory believe that the priests who performed the sacrifices must have sadistically enjoyed them. I know of no scripture that directly or indirectly implies this. The priests who performed the sacrifices were merely being compliant to the ordinances of God (Lev. 16:2, 34). Bell does not address God’s holiness at all, or the implications of the mercy seat, or the meaning of ransom, nor does Bell properly exegete the passages that undergird the theory of substitution. Therefore I feel the reasoning behind his terminology of “redemptive violence” is faulty. The areas that Bell has left out will be examined now.

1.1.2 Kappōret: the mercy seat

The sin offering in Leviticus 16 was made by the high priest who entered through the inner veil (Lev. 16:15) and sprinkled blood on the mercy seat (kappōret) (Harris et al. 2003:453). The mercy seat referred to the golden cover of the sacred Ark of the Covenant (Ex. 25:17-22), of the tabernacle or temple. Numbers 7:89 tells us that it was above the mercy seat that God met with His people; this is a concept that Paul revives in Romans 3:25 when Paul says Jesus is our propitiation which is the same word as ‘mercy seat’ in Hebrews 9:5. The blood from the sacrificial animal that was sprinkled on the mercy seat represented the ‘life’ of the people who were seeking atonement and thus the animal became a substitution for the sinner (Lev. 17:11-14). Blood is not only important because it represents life, but without it, there can be no remission of sins (Heb. 9:22). The reason is because sin brought death into the world (Rom. 5:12), and therefore the person who sins must die as the penalty for sin. Without the substitution of the animal, it would be the sinner dying. The transference of sin from the person to the animal was signified by placing the person’s hand on the animal and confessing the sins of the people (Lev. 16:21). As mentioned earlier the goat whose blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat was a sacrifice that acted as a substitutionary offering for the people of Israel (Harris et al. 2003:453).

1.1.3 Kōpper: ransom

Kāpar, the root word of kōpper, makes the meaning of the word “ransom” clearer because together they mean “to atone by making a sacrifice” (Harris et al.2003:453). The majority of the uses of kōpper in scripture concern the priestly ritual of sprinkling the sacrificial blood and it is always used in connection with the removal of sin. It signified a ransom which was associated with an exchange of a guilty life for an innocent life which would redeem the people of Israel by removing their sin. This exchange was demonstrated by the blood of the first goat and the release of the scapegoat into the wilderness which carried the sins of the people. Isaiah 53:10 further supports this by stating that Jesus made a guilt offering on our behalf, therefore the guilt of our sin is atoned for. Also, just as the goat bore the sins of the people into the wilderness, so Jesus bore our sins (Is. 53:5, 6, 11). The ransom motif becomes even clearer in the New Testament where Jesus forecast His death and said of Himself that He would be a ransom for sin (Matt. 20:28, cf. Mar. 10:45; 1 Ti. 2:6). The ransom was paid to God, by God, just as in the Old Testament (Lev. 17:11). This point is referred to again in the New Testament by both Paul and John. Morris (1998[1988]§Rom.3:24) believes that Paul was aware of the sub-text of buying back slaves in Leviticus 25:44-46 when he said we are “redeemed in Christ” (Rom. 3:24). This phase echoes the payment made on behalf of those who were sold into slavery in order to buy them back. Spiritually, Jesus buys us back from being slaves to sin (Rom. 7:14). Also, John in chapter 4, verse 10, makes it clear that the love that God showed us was manifested by substituting His Son for the world, as a sacrifice, in order to appease God’s wrath so that we can be reconciled to God. According to van Gemeren (in Elwell 2001:1901) the instructions on the offerings and sacrifices are the core of the redemption teaching, both in the Old and New Testaments. In New Testament times, after Jesus’ resurrection, the apostles used the Old Testament language of sacrifice to apply to Jesus and His work of atonement. This type of language can be seen in Hebrews 2:17 where Jesus is said to be our High Priest, and Romans 12:1-2 where Paul urges us be as a living sacrifice to God. Van Gemeren (p. 1905) notes that the Old Testament offerings can be broken down into categories. One of these was a propitiatory offering which included the concept of expiation. The propitiatory offering comprised of the sin offering and the guilt offering. The sin offering was made at each of the Hebrew festivals, notably the Day of Atonement as seen in Leviticus 16. The Day of Atonement was an annual event (Lev. 16:34) in which two goats were sacrificed as a sin offering (v. 5). Motyer (in Elwell 2003:273) notes that one of the goats was a private sacrifice occurring in the inner sanctuary and was made only by the high priest. The other goat, known as the ‘sin-bearer’ (v. 22), was released into the wilderness (v. 10). The purpose of the sin offering was to make the Israelite people ritually clean and cancel their sins, so that their sins would not defile the tent of meeting where God resided as stated in Leviticus 16:16. The sin offering in Leviticus 16 points particularly to the future atoning work of Jesus Christ in Hebrews 9:7-14 (Currid, Kiuchi, Sklar in Dennis 2007:237). While words like mercy seat, reconciliation and propitiation are a reoccurring theme in the Bible. The Greek words hilastērion (Rom. 3:25 and Heb. 9:5), hilāsmos (1 Jn. 2:2 and 4:10), and hilāskomai (Lk. 18:3 and Heb. 2:17) constitute the hilask- word group, and will be investigated in this section. These three Greek words are valuable as they represent the only 6 occurrences of this word group in the New Testament (Allman 2015:352).

1.2 Hilastērion:

1.2.1 Hebrews 9:5

Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. (Heb. 9:5)

The Greek word hilastēriontranslated as “propitiation” in Romans 3:25 and “mercy seat”[2] in Hebrews 9:5 (Zodhiates 1993:771). The Greek word hilastērionmeans “to propitiate, expiate”. The LXX translation of “mercy seat” in Leviticus 16 is also hilastērion (Moo 1996:232). Here in the New Testament the sacrificial language of the Old Testament becomes very clear, particularly in the verses noted above. This type of sacrificial language found in Leviticus, makes its way into the book of the Hebrews (da Silva 2011:800). Leviticus thus becomes the pre-text of Hebrews and “intertextuality” is the overarching literary device used. Intertextuality, as defined by Stephens (1992:84), is a process by which meaning is produced “from the interrelationships between audience, text, other texts, and the socio-cultural determinations of significance”. Thus within the immediate context of Hebrews, the author wants to strengthen the faith of the back-sliding recipients by demonstrating that Jesus Christ ushers in a New Covenant which is better than the Old (Heb. 8:6), and by re-contextualising the sacrificial language, the author explains how it has been done (da Silva 2011:802). The explanation given is that Jesus is our only, and permanent, High Priest (Heb. 7:23-24), unlike the former high priests who died. The sacrifice Jesus made occurred once and for all (Heb. 7:27), unlike the former high priest who had to make a sacrifice every year. Jesus chose to offer Himself up (Heb. 7:27, 9:11-14), unlike the sacrificial goats. And Jesus entered the presence of God through His own blood, unlike the priests who did it through the blood of goats and calves (Heb. 9:11-14). Jesus now becomes our sin-bearer (Is. 53: 4, 6, 10-12), and no longer the goat sent into the wilderness. It is now Christ’s blood sprinkled on the mercy seat and not that of goats and calves. This relation between Christ and the mercy seat is clearly drawn in Romans 3:25 (Moo 1996:232). The root word kāpar means atonement, to make reconciliation and purge, and the mercy seat was the place where God met His people, where reconciliation took place and sins were expiated and propitiated. Moo (1996:232), referring to Romans 3:25 and acknowledging the use of the same word in Hebrews 9:5, proposes that Paul’s use of the term “mercy seat” shows that he meant to use that term as he saw Christ as the New Covenant equivalent to the Old Testament mercy seat. Now that the term hilastērion has been explained, another aspect of propitiation will be examined. Part of propitiation concerns the appeasement of God’s wrath, which Dodd denies primarily because it does not fit his view of God (Allman 2015:337). In the following paragraph, God’s wrath in the New Testament will be proved to be a reality and then in section three, God’s wrath in the Old Testament will be proved to be a reality.

1.2.2 Romans 3:25

… whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (Rom. 3:25)

Morris (1998[1998]:§introduction) asserts the importance of the book of Romans and points out that it ushered in an era of spiritual renewal through the Reformers. Romans contained the text that converted John Wesley and shaped Martin Luther’s theology due to its striking literary feature which heralds detailed and theologically dense moral exhortations (Schreiner in Dennis 2007:2154). Perhaps the text that can be said to summarise the whole essence of the book of Romans is in 3:21-26 (Moo 1996:216). Words like “righteousness” (vv. 21, 22, 25), “justified” (v. 24), “grace” (v. 24), “redemption” (v. 24), “faith” (v. 25) and “propitiation” (v. 25), which are foundational to Christian faith and understanding are all mentioned in these five verses. However, to appreciate what is often referred to as the heart of the gospel[3], Paul needs to prepare the mind-set of the readers (Moo 1996:92). Sin, wrath and judgement are pervading themes in Romans 1:18-3:20, until God’s righteousness, grace and justification express the gospel message 3:21-4:25. The preliminary discussion (1:18-3:20), which takes place before Paul addresses the heart of the gospel (3:21-4:25) most certainly affirms that hilastērionmeans the turning away of God’s wrath, which renders Dodd’s hypothesis as incorrect. Paul begins with the statement that no one is righteous apart from God (1:17), and so God’s wrath[4] will be revealed (1:18 c.f. 2:2) towards sinners (1:29-31) in a coming day of wrath (2:5) and that no one can be saved through the law (2:12) because all have sinned (3:23). In view of this, how is it possible to be reconciled to a holy God? The answer is through Jesus, who has been manifested apart from the law (3:21) for He is our propitiation (3:25). Like the author of Hebrews, Paul wanted the audience to read a new meaning into an old text: Jesus is the propitiatory gift by which God chooses to deal with us mercifully. Contrary to both Zodhiates and Moo, Dodd (1931:360) believes that the word “propitiation” in Romans 3:25 is inappropriate and should be translated as “expiate” as it is in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Part of Dodd’s reasoning is that propitiation has pagan connotations to it; however, I do not see that as an issue. The Bible is clear in saying that God is not like the other gods (Is. 46:9). One way in which God is different from the other false gods is that appeasing God’s wrath is not a form of bribery. God does not accept bribes because it perverts justice (Pro. 17:23, Deut. 10:17). God’s uniqueness is further revealed in His Holy nature who cannot tolerate unrighteousness (Erickson 1989:284).

Furthermore, God is the one who provides the sacrifice in both the Old and New Testaments (Lev. 17:11; Rom. 3:25), unlike a man who would himself make provision for his sacrifice to a pagan God. In addition to God being unique, in Paul’s epistle to the Romans, Paul takes great care to show the Roman recipients that they are sinful and how that the wrath of God is therefore directed against them, and all humanity (Rom. 1:18, 2:5, 2:8, 3:5, 4:15, 5:9, 12:19 and 13:4-5). Further to Dodd’s discredit, Erickson (1989:811) points out that in Romans 3:25-26 Paul states that God could be accused of not dealing with sins in the past because the blood of bulls and goats could never really be a substitute for sin. But in sending Jesus to die in our place, God is just (a penalty must be paid because of sin) and the justifier of the unrighteous (His love provided the sacrifice). How could God be seen as just and the justifier if Jesus only expiated sin? Moo (1996:231) writes that in the atonement “God’s love and wrath meet”, and to deny either undermines what the atonement is and what it means. How else can the words of Proverbs 17:15, “he who justifies the wicked is an abomination”, be reconciled with a just God who nevertheless justifies the ungodly?

1.3 Hilasmos: 1 John 2:2 and 4:10

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1Jn 2:2)

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1Jn 4:10)

The Greek word hilāsmos is translated into the English word “propitiation” in both 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 (Zodhiates 1993:769). The Greek word hilāsmos means “to propitiate, expiate”. In these two verses we are told that Jesus is the sacrifice that God sent for the whole world out of His love for us, and He did this not because we loved Him but because He loved us. Here is a very good example of both God’s love and wrath. God provided the atonement for us that we could not provide for ourselves because of our sin. He loved us before we loved Him because this plan was in place before the beginning of the world (Eph. 1:4). However, Dodd (1931:60) argues against the use of propitiation here as with Romans and Hebrews for the same reason as previously mentioned. Zodhiates (1993:769) notes that the noun hilāsmos is connected to hilāskomai in Hebrews 2:17 where Jesus is both sacrifice and High Priest which mirrors the work of the high priest on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16.

1.4 Hilāskomai: Hebrews 2:17 and Luke 18:13

Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Heb. 2:17) But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' (Luk. 18:13)

The Greek word hilāskomai means “to propitiate” in English, according to Zodhiates (1993:768). In Luke 18:13 the word is translated as “merciful” in English and as “propitiation” in Hebrews 2:17. Dodd (1931:359-60) again argues against the translation of hilāskomai as propitiation in the Luke 18:13 verse but agrees with the ESV translation reproduced above. I agree with the latter sentiment as it fits the context, however, the concept of propitiation fits the context of undeserved mercy. Here, in Luke 18:13, the sinner is asking God to look past his sins and forgive him in spite of them because he understands how hopeless it is for him to become sinless (Rom. 3:20). Forgiving the sinner regardless of his merit fits logically with what mercy means. God does the same for us because for us to be sinless through our merit is hopeless; and being sinless is the only way to avert God’s wrath because it is our sin that makes God have righteous anger. Through Jesus’ sinless life and act of substitution, God no longer looks at our sins because Jesus paid the penalty on our behalf which is why the substitution is ‘penal’. Jesus’ sinless nature satisfied God’s wrath. Now, when God looks at a believer He sees the righteousness Jesus has imputed to us (Rom. 5:17). Our sins are forgiven for His name’s sake (1 Jn. 2:12). Luke 18:13 and Heb. 2:17 are connected to 1 John 2:2, 4:10 as the noun, hilāsmos, indicates Jesus as the one who removes sin and as the one who is the means of removal (Zodhiates 1993:770). Jesus is the one who cleanses us from our sins and reconciles us to God as indicated in Hebrews 2:17, 9:5; Romans 3:25; and 1 John 2:2, 4:10. Zodhiates writes further that the sins of the people in Hebrews 2:17 are the direct object of the verb hilāskesthai, therefore it is not the nature of God that is changed from hatred of man to love, but the nature of man that is changed. This is precisely why the wrath of God and the love of God are not contradictions. This thought echoes Paul’s words which say “you are a new creation in Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17). In this passage of Luke 18:13, it is the individual sinner who is dealt with mercifully, while in Heb. 2:17 it is the collective sins of the people that are forgiven because of Christ. In both, sin is the issue. Sin is a problem because of who God is – holy. In the following section the nature of God will be examined in order to reconcile God’s love and justice.

2. Construction of a theological model of propitiation and its application

So far this essay has looked at the various theories of atonement and the key exegetical texts in both the Old and New Testaments on which these theories are based. It has also briefly touched upon key elements of God’s character regarding propitiation and the theory of penal-substitution. However, a more in-depth examination of God’s character is needed so that nuances of the concept of propitiation within the theory of penal-substitution can be more fully integrated into the argument. The nuances also affect the application of what propitiation means for the New Testament believer. It is my belief that understanding what the doctrine of propitiation is will prompt worship in our hearts because we now understand who it is that we worship.

2.1 The attributes of God pertaining to propitiation

3.21.1 God’s holiness

Washer (2011:§the holiness of God) declares that our understanding of God’s holiness will affect our approach to the rest of scripture because it is such a preeminent feature of the biblical message. God’s holiness reflected in His law, exposes sin and the broken covenant relationship between God and man (Gal 3:21-24). God’s wrath springs forth from God’s holiness because it is motivated by God’s hatred of sin. Therefore it is God’s holiness, which is the cornerstone of propitiation. God’s holiness is emphasised by the use of the Hebraic literary device of repetition in Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8 where the angels shout, “holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty”. “Holy”, in Hebrew, is qâdôsh, and is something which is “intrinsically sacred” and is separate from “the common or profane” (Harris et al. 2003:788). Holiness is always connected to the character of God as one of His attributes because it is intrinsic to who He is. Like oil and water, God is totally separate from sin and hates it (Ps. 5:5), but loves righteousness (Ps. 33:5). As God is the epitome of holiness, so He is also its source and standard as expressed in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:12-17) (Lewis 2007:1109). God expected the Israelites to obey his commandments and thus reflect His holy character as seen in the statement, “Be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44). However they did not (Lev. 10), therefore God created boundaries within both the tabernacle and through the offering of sacrifices to show the separation between Him and the people because of their uncleanness. In contrast to this, Chalke and Mann (2003:58) do not believe that it is God’s holiness that exposes our sinfulness, but His love. If God loves more than we do and for Him to see humanity’s pain and suffering would cause Him greater pain than it does for us. Cross-referencing God’s holiness with passages like Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4 makes it clear that it is revealing that it is God’s holiness, and not His love, that exposes the sinfulness in man and inspires worship. The seraphim in Isaiah 6 proclaim God as “holy, holy, holy” (v. 3), upon which Isaiah is struck with a sense of his own sinfulness which is shown by his response of “Woe is me!” (v. 5). In Revelation 4 the four living creatures also never cease in announcing that God is “holy, holy, holy” (v. 8), upon which the 24 elders bow down and worship God (vv.10, 11). In both cases it is the holiness of God, and not His love for others, that motivates these reactions by the Isaiah and the 24 elders. In the section below, I will examine God’s holiness in relation to His wrath, justice and love because these aspects are interlinked and qualify one another. 2.1.2 God’s wrath

In the initial stage of researching God’s attribute of wrath, it is important to examine if wrath is indeed an attribute of God since this is a key part of the doctrine of propitiation. Some theologians like Green and Baker find this questionable. Green and Baker (2011:54) do actually acknowledge the wrath of God, yet they do not agree that it is an attribute of His. Green et al rather understand Paul’s discussion of the wrath of God in Romans 1 as God’s judgement on all wickedness and ungodliness (Rom. 1:18). I do not agree with this as what defines an attribute of God is a characteristic that is essential to His being (Lewis in Elwell 2001:1099). It is essential to His being because of the amount of time biblical authors divest in writing about it and its connection to God’s righteousness. Morris (in Elwell 2001:2139) notes that wrath is a very real facet to God’s character in both the Old and New Testament[5], as it is mentioned 585 times in the Old Testament alone. These texts that mention wrath are often connected to God’s love and justice. Justice which is the enforcement of God’s righteousness means that if God is good and loves all that is good, He must therefore hate evil and all that is evil[6]. Grudem’s (1994:206) definition of wrath is very clear: “God’s wrath means that He intensely hates all sin”, and since God’s wrath is so tied up with His attribute of love and justice, it too is an essential attribute. Due to the scope of this essay, I will examine just three texts which demonstrate the connection between God’s wrath, justice and holiness. These three texts have been chosen because they relate to the exegetical texts in section two of this essay. The three texts are: the death of Uzziah (2 Chron. 26, Isa. 6); the death of Nadub and Abihu (Lev. 10, 16); and the righteous judgement of Israel (Isa. 1, 5,6).

Nadab, Abihu and King Uzziah did not obey the laws God laid out regarding the use of the tabernacle. The tabernacle was a sacred space where only designated priests (Lev. 8:1-10:20) could make assigned acts of worship (Lev. 6:8-7:38). The tabernacle had two divisions: “the Holy Place” and the “Most Holy Place” (Ex 26:33). The Most Holy Place was called that because God resided there (Ex. 29:45), above the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Ex. 25:10-22). Nadab, Abihu and King Uzziah did not obey the laws laid out by God with regard to the priestly duties (Ex. 25:1-31-17). Nadab and Abihu offered unauthorised fire on the Altar of Incense (Ex. 30:9; Lev. 10:1), and Uzziah tried to offer incense[7]instead of asking the high priest to do it (Num. 3:10, 2 Chron. 26:16). These infractions were caused by sin: Nadab and Abihu were probably drunk (Lev. 10:8-9), and Uzziah became proud (2 Chron. 26:15). The result was God’s wrath: Nadab and Abihu were struck with some kind of divine fire and died (Lev. 10:10) and King Uzziah was struck with leprosy until his death (2 Chron. 26:18, 23). The reason behind God’s wrath in both cases was His distinguishing characteristic of holiness and separation from the profane. In the accounts of Nadab, Abihu and Uzziah, their deaths issued in a new initiatives by the Lord. Firstly, there was the commission of Isaiah as God’s prophet in Isaiah chapter 6, “In the year that King Uzziah died…” (v. 1). Secondly, in the Day of Atonement in Leviticus chapter 16, “The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron [Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1)] …” While there is no direct reference to God’s holiness in the account of Uzziah in chapter 26, of 2 Chronicles it is mentioned in Isaiah 6:3. The connection between God’s holiness and wrath is prominent in Isaiah 6, however in order to understand the context of Isaiah 6, it is important to understand the setting. In Isaiah 1:4 the LORD dramatically declares in verse 1 that Israel is a “sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity…” Isaiah 5:8-23 explains how they have forsaken the LORD as stipulated in verse 4 by listing blatant examples of disobedience[8]. The Lord’s righteous anger is therefore kindled (v. 25) because of their flagrant and constant disobedience. The Lord states that His judgement is coming and this is seen in the parallelisms of “I will make it a waste” (v. 6), “my people will go into exile” (v. 13), and “He stretched out his hand against them and struck them” (v. 25). In chapter 6 Isaiah’s vision continues. The Lord is sitting upon a throne in the temple (v.2) with the seraphim proclaiming, “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts… (v. 3)” Upon this revelation of a holy God, Isaiah’s own sinfulness amongst the nation is exposed and he proclaims his utter wretchedness with the expression, “Woe is me!” (v. 5). One would think that God’s judgement in exiling his people would provoke Isaiah to hate God and claim that He is unjust, like so many people do when they reap the punishment of their own sin. Isaiah’s response however, is that God is just and he exalts God for it and is proclaimed as holy (Isa. 5:16). God’s holiness is therefore seen in His moral law, His wrath is seen when Israel disobeys Him, and His justice is seen in the righteous judgement of those sinning against a Holy God. 2.1.3 God’s justice

From God’s holiness, flows God’s justice. Those failing to adhere to God’s holiness must suffer the consequences. God has determined those consequences as curses (Deut 28:15-68), the most severe being death (Rom. 6:23). Israel was to reflect the holiness of God by being a pure people. For this reason God instituted the sacrifices so that there was a way for Israel to become clean, once they became unclean (Lev. 10:10). In the accounts of Nadab, Abihu and Uzziah, the consequence of their sin was death, to which the writer of Genesis confirms God’s judgements as being just (18:25). The writer of Genesis also says that God’s judgement is shown to be just by his separation of the treatment of the wicked and the righteous. God only punishes the wicked (deserving) and not the righteous (underserving). Proverbs 17:15 echoes this and says that those who justify the wicked are on abomination to God. In other words, for God to be truly just, He must judge the wicked. So then, how can God justify humanity (Rom. 3:24), when none of us are righteous (Rom. 3:10), but all are wicked (Jer. 17:9 King James Version)? This is the crux of the dilemma of the gospel that the doctrine of propitiation reconciles (Washer 2012§Indictment 4). No wonder Jeremiah (9:23-24) proclaims the only thing we should boast in is knowing the LORD. In order to fully understand how this reconciliation between God’s attributes of love and justice take place, the attribute of love must be examined.

2.1.4 God’s love

Let us examine Isaiah 6 again for a moment. Isaiah’s response in chapter 6 to his vision of God is that of despair, expressed in the exclamation “Woe is me!” (v. 5). In verses 6 and 7 the angel cleanses Isaiah’s sin and guilt with a hot coal applied to his mouth. For God to cleanse Isaiah was an act of grace. God would have had a right to send Isaiah into exile, like the nation of Israel, or to kill him. Then in verse 8 the Lord asks “who will go for us?” In response to this Isaiah again exclaims, “Here I am! Send me.” Isaiah went from an extremely negative feeling to an extremely positive feeling – in other words he received joyful encouragement through grace. As well as cleansing Isaiah’s sin, God did not wipe out the nation of Israel but left a remnant, unlike Sodom and Gomorrah which He utterly destroyed (Isa. 1:9). Leaving a remnant was not something God was required to do because of their sin (Heb. 10:30), however, in spite of their sin, God promised to never leave nor forsake Israel (Deut. 31:6). The verse in Isaiah 1:9 is quoted by Paul in Romans 9:29 but now it refers to the gentiles. Like the grace given to the underserving Israelites, so too are the gentiles allowed to become part of God’s family (Rom. 9:26). Chalke and Mann see God’s love in a different light, for they remove the concept of a penalty that must be paid because of sin from their theology. The theory of penal-substitution believes a penalty must be paid because of sin. Chalke et al (2003:67) rather believe that the inherent ‘goodness’ pronounced over creation by God (Gen. 1), before the Fall (Gen. 3), is still within people. Chalke et al arrives at that conclusion because humanity never stopped being made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), but believe that after the Fall, our goodness is just hidden. Jesus, according to Chalke et al, really sees the “original goodness”, of humanity which is a play on the term “original sin” describing the Fall of humanity in Genesis 3. In fact Chalke et al (p. 68) go so far as to say that to see humanity as inherently evil and steeped in original sin is a mistake and a serious error because this has resulted in the true message of Jesus being lost. The “lost message of Jesus” is to proclaim and demonstrates God’s “outrageous grace, his boundless forgiveness and his limitless love”. Chalke’s et al theory of atonement is very much like the subjective moral-influence theory of atonement mentioned in section one of this essay. Christ’s death is simply there to persuade humanity to become obedient. This theory is severely lacking in its failure to address sin. Penal-substitution is necessary because it addresses our inherent sinful natures. Chalke’s et al theory, like the moral-influence theory, is impotent because it leaves humanity in a seemingly ‘safe’ position because it doesn’t deal with the problem of sin and falsely pacifies humanity through ignorance. This can only lead to a superficial experience of worship because of the weak gospel message.

Referring now to the theory of penal-substitution, what is the source of this kind of love that encompasses all peoples of all nations and draws them into the family of God? John writes most clearly about the attribute of God which flows out from who He is: “…God is love…” (1 John 4:8). The Greek word for love in the aforementioned verse is agapē and means “love, affectionate regard, goodwill, and benevolence” (Zodhiates 1993:66). In other words, it is a selfless love that seeks the highest good in the other person regardless of their standing or worth. God’s love can be seen in action in verses like 1 John 4:10 and John 3:16. Who else could perfectly satisfy God’s wrath, justice and righteousness but Jesus Christ who was fully God and fully man (Col. 2:9)?

2.2 Implications of propitiation for New Testament believers

The theory of penal-substitution poignantly allows God’s love to be displayed as outstanding due to the implications of propitiation for New Testament believers. I would like to demonstrate this by way of analogy. What would one think of a person who died to save someone who they hated and was angry with? In other words, they died to save their enemy. One would greatly admire that person. One would also marvel at the type of selfless love shown to the enemy so undeserving. One would also be bewildered by such love and it would likely inspire one to try to be the same. Now what would one think of someone who died for their child, spouse or best friend? You would still applaud such a heroic act but it would not foster the same type of awe and bewilderment because it seems more ‘natural’ to human nature to save someone you love. The Bible says God is like the first example. Paul says, it is easy enough to die for a righteous person but not so for an unrighteous person (Rom. 5:7). This is the power of the gospel (Rom. 1:16) which makes it good news (Acts 8:35). God hates us (Ps. 5:5) and is angry at us every day (Ps. 7:11) because of our sins. Yet He selflessly loved us enough to send His Son Jesus to die in our place (Jn. 3:16), even while we were His enemies (Rom. 5:10). This type of love that God shows us is what is contrary to selfish human nature, and therefore we marvel, are bewildered, and are inspired by it. This is why the ransom, moral-influence, and satisfaction theory is insufficient. The focus is not on God; His righteous wrath toward sin is denied; the enormity of His selfless love dissipates and the weight of sin is robbed from the gospel story, rendering it a dull sword. However, the result or implications of the kind of love God gives when Jesus is the perfect satisfaction toward God’s wrath, inspires the believer to praise God. Both Psalm 33:5 and Jeremiah 9:23-24 speak of the steadfast love of the LORD which means that God’s love and kindness are eternal. The words “steadfast love” do not speak only of God’s love and kindness, but also of His mercy, goodness, and faithfulness (Baker and Carpenter 1992:§H2617). God’s steadfast love is seen in the New Covenant that He made with us through Jesus. In the opening verse of Jeremiah 9:23-24, there are three key words: love, justice and righteousness. These key terms describe noteworthy characteristics of God which tie in with the doctrine of propitiation. Packer (2007:77) writes about Jesus’ motive of love, who “was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory”. God had a plan to save humanity and He fulfilled that plan through Jesus (Eph. 1:4). A plan that once was fulfilled meant permanent and eternal reconciliation between God and man. Then that knowledge of utter hopelessness without Jesus has an effect on a believer to inspire praise, joy and worship. This response is seen in Psalm 33:1: “Shout for joy in the LORD, O you righteous! Praise befits the upright”.

Joy is connected to worship or the act of worship. Snider (2009:218) believes that Christian worship is directly linked to sacrifice. To remove, deny or diminish the key areas of sacrifice and substitution is devastating to worship. I agree with this in light of all the scripture that has been examined so far in this essay. Psalm 32, which is a thanksgiving psalm, is a good example of penal-substitution directly arising from a theology of sacrifice and substitution. Psalm 32 echoes the pattern of atonement in verse 1 where the psalmist says, “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered”. New Testament Christians have been forgiven because our sins have been covered by Jesus’ blood shed at the cross which echoes the blood sprinkled on the cover of the mercy seat on the Day of Atonement. The blessing spoken of in verse 1 is further explained in verse 10 by how believers receive the “steadfast love of the Lord”. This love is further emphasised with the juxtaposition of the wicked who will have many “sorrows”. A cross-reference to Romans 2:9 relates the many sorrows which result from trials and tribulations. Trials and tribulations result because of the wrath and fury of the Lord against sin and sinners and this is qualified in the preceding verse (Rom. 2:8). Believers need no longer fear God because His wrath is no longer against them (1 Jn. 4:18) which results in thanksgiving. The psalmist expresses thanksgiving and says he is “glad”, and that he can “rejoice”, and “shout for joy” (verse 11).