Divided God head
- Thread starter fltom
- Start date
The atonement of the annual sacrifice of atonement comes from the scapegoat. The Jewish rendition is "16:10. while the goat designated by lot for Azazel shall be left standing alive before the LORD, to make expiation with it and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel."
Leviticus 16 "10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness."
"21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:"
If God will never acquit the wicked (and that we all were), where did God's justice go? The wicked are the wicked until the law is fulfilled, and God's justice is satisfied. Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law [of death]. How did He do this?
Our Lord's God
Well-known member
You just did in your own OP.
Did what? where?
@civic
14.1.3. The Case for “Expiation”
How shall we translate hilastērion, “propitiation” or “expiation”? To decide the matter, we will consider use of the related verb hilaskomai and noun hilasmos in the New Testament, of which there are two instances of each, and compare those instances to precedents in the Greek Old Testament (LXX). “The crucial question,” we agree with John Stott, “is whether the object of the atoning action is God or man. If the former, then the right word is “propitiation” (appeasing God); if the latter, the right word is “expiation” (dealing with sin and guilt).”9 We will thus examine the New Testament usage of atonement language and the precedent usage in the LXX to see whether atoning action is directed toward God and his anger (propitiation) or humans and their sins (expiation).10
In Jesus’ parable we hear the tax collector in the Temple praying, “God, be merciful to me (hilasthēti moi), a sinner” (Luke 18:13). The tax collector petitions God with the second person passive imperative, implying that God, not the tax collector, is the intended initiator (subject) of the action of the verb hilaskomai; and the tax collector identifies himself, not God, as the intended recipient (object) of the action—“to me” (moi). The object of the action here is thus this human being, not God. The petition assumes, not that God must be rendered merciful by a propitiating human action, but that God is ready to show mercy to the contrite sinner. Because the atoning action is directed from God (initiator) to the tax collector (recipient), we might as well render this petition in the active voice, “God, make atonement for me, the sinner.”
The usage of hilaskomai in Luke 18:13 is analogous to that in LXX Ps 78:9, “Help us, O God our Savior … forgive (hilasthēti) our sins (hamartiais hymōn) because of your name.” Like the tax collector’s prayer in the parable, this psalm petitions God to act with forgiveness of sins. As in Luke 18:13, the second person passive imperative implies that the addressee—God—is the intended initiator of the action of the verb hilaskomai and the petitioner—“us”—is the expected recipient. Thus, the subject of the atoning action is God, and the object is sins and sinners—thus, atoning action concerns expiation, not propitiation.
In Hebrews, we read that Jesus came “to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins (hilaskesthai tas harmatias) of the people” (Heb 2:17), where the verb appears in the infinitive form. Here the direct object of the verb hilaskomai is “the sins” (tas harmatias), which appears in the accusative case. The atoning action that Jesus performs thus concerns “the sins,” not wrath, and the stated recipient of the atoning action is “the people,” not God. Again, we find that the atoning action is initiated by God-in-Christ and directed toward the sins of humanity—and thus concerns expiation, not propitiation.
The usage of hilaskomai in Heb 2:17 is analogous to that in LXX Ps 64:4, “… lawless deeds (anomiōn) overpower us, but you make atonement for (hilasē) our impieties (asebeias).” Hilasē is the second person future middle of hilaskomai, the subject of which is implicitly God, to whom the psalm is clearly addressed. The object of the verb is asebeias (“impieties”), which appears in the accusative case and is parallel with anomiōn (“lawless deeds”). Thus, God is the subject of the atoning action and sins are the object of that action—hence, atonement-making here concerns God’s action to expiate sin, not human action to propitiate God.
In John’s first epistle, we read that Jesus “is the atoning sacrifice (hilasmos) for our sins” (1 John 2:2; cf. 4:10). As to John’s understanding of how Jesus’ death atones for our sins, he writes that Jesus’ blood “cleanses us from all sins,” that “If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1:7, 9). Elsewhere, John writes that Jesus “was revealed to take away sins” (3:5). The effect of Jesus’ death concerning humanity’s sins is to “cleanse” (katharizō) or “remove” (airō) sin—thus, Jesus’ death as an “atoning sacrifice” (hilasmos) functions as an expiation of sin, not a propitiation of God.
In LXX Ezek 44:27, hilasmos is used to translate Hebrew hattāʾt. We have observed (Chapter 10) that in the Levitical cult hattāʾt denotes both the “sin offering” and the “purification offering”—and thus that there was really a single offering for both sin and impurity, concerning removal of pollution. In Ezekiel 44, the hilasmos belongs to a ritual of purification: “They shall not defile themselves.… After he has come clean.… On the day he goes into the inner court, to minister in the holy place, he shall offer his hilasmos …” (vv. 25–27). Whether we translate hilasmos as “sin offering” or “purification offering” or “atoning sacrifice,” the Old Testament background is purification from sin, not propitiation of God, which fits well with the context in 1 John.
J. Ramsey Michaels has argued that hilasmos in 1 John has the sense of both expiation and propitiation. The evidence he presents for the latter is that John writes of Jesus as our “advocate with (pros) the Father” in 2:1, the verse preceding that speaking of Jesus as “the atoning sacrifice (hilasmos) for our sins.” That Jesus is our advocate, he contends, “makes God the object, not the subject, of the reconciliation said to be taking place.” The Greek text does put “God” in the accusative case as the grammatical object of the preposition pros. The NIV interprets the text as does Michaels, translating this phrase “one who speaks to the Father in our defense,” which makes God the object of Jesus’ action on our behalf. The preposition pros need not imply that God is the recipient of the action of which Jesus is the agent, however—“to,” “toward,” “upon,” or “against” are not the only options for translating pros. One could just as well render pros “with,” in the sense of either “in accordance with” or “in company with.” Indeed, “with” is how many translations render pros here (cf. NAB, NASB, NET, NJB, NRSV). Such a rendering of 1 John 2:1 fits well with what Paul writes, that “the Spirit intercedes for (hyper) the saints according to (kata) the will of God” (Rom 8:27). Both God the Son and God the Spirit intercede on our behalf in accord with and in company with God the Father. As John emphasizes, Jesus’ death to expiate sin is already an expression of God’s love for us: “In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice (hilasmon) for our sins” (1 John 4:10). There is thus simply no need for Jesus to propitiate God by sacrifice in order to render God merciful toward us; for the Incarnation of the Son reveals that God has loved us from the beginning and that God’s love is the moving cause of the Son’s death “for our sins.”
The New Testament usage of hilaskomai and hilasmos, consistent with its precedent usage in the Greek Old Testament, speaks consistently of God’s atoning action in Christ directed toward sin on behalf of sinners, not human action directed toward God to satisfy God. The criterion for interpretation, Stott has said, “is whether the object of the atoning action is God or man.” “Propitiation” indicates an action by humans directed toward God, and “expiation” indicates an action by God toward sin and sinners. According to Stott’s own criterion, these texts uniformly favor “expiation” over “propitiation.” Given the choice of translating hilastērion either “propitiation” or “expiation,” therefore, “expiation” is preferable based on the textual evidence of both the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament. James Dunn summarizes well the case for preferring “expiation” to “propitiation” as a translation for hilastērion:
Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 247–252.
14.1.3. The Case for “Expiation”
How shall we translate hilastērion, “propitiation” or “expiation”? To decide the matter, we will consider use of the related verb hilaskomai and noun hilasmos in the New Testament, of which there are two instances of each, and compare those instances to precedents in the Greek Old Testament (LXX). “The crucial question,” we agree with John Stott, “is whether the object of the atoning action is God or man. If the former, then the right word is “propitiation” (appeasing God); if the latter, the right word is “expiation” (dealing with sin and guilt).”9 We will thus examine the New Testament usage of atonement language and the precedent usage in the LXX to see whether atoning action is directed toward God and his anger (propitiation) or humans and their sins (expiation).10
In Jesus’ parable we hear the tax collector in the Temple praying, “God, be merciful to me (hilasthēti moi), a sinner” (Luke 18:13). The tax collector petitions God with the second person passive imperative, implying that God, not the tax collector, is the intended initiator (subject) of the action of the verb hilaskomai; and the tax collector identifies himself, not God, as the intended recipient (object) of the action—“to me” (moi). The object of the action here is thus this human being, not God. The petition assumes, not that God must be rendered merciful by a propitiating human action, but that God is ready to show mercy to the contrite sinner. Because the atoning action is directed from God (initiator) to the tax collector (recipient), we might as well render this petition in the active voice, “God, make atonement for me, the sinner.”
The usage of hilaskomai in Luke 18:13 is analogous to that in LXX Ps 78:9, “Help us, O God our Savior … forgive (hilasthēti) our sins (hamartiais hymōn) because of your name.” Like the tax collector’s prayer in the parable, this psalm petitions God to act with forgiveness of sins. As in Luke 18:13, the second person passive imperative implies that the addressee—God—is the intended initiator of the action of the verb hilaskomai and the petitioner—“us”—is the expected recipient. Thus, the subject of the atoning action is God, and the object is sins and sinners—thus, atoning action concerns expiation, not propitiation.
In Hebrews, we read that Jesus came “to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins (hilaskesthai tas harmatias) of the people” (Heb 2:17), where the verb appears in the infinitive form. Here the direct object of the verb hilaskomai is “the sins” (tas harmatias), which appears in the accusative case. The atoning action that Jesus performs thus concerns “the sins,” not wrath, and the stated recipient of the atoning action is “the people,” not God. Again, we find that the atoning action is initiated by God-in-Christ and directed toward the sins of humanity—and thus concerns expiation, not propitiation.
The usage of hilaskomai in Heb 2:17 is analogous to that in LXX Ps 64:4, “… lawless deeds (anomiōn) overpower us, but you make atonement for (hilasē) our impieties (asebeias).” Hilasē is the second person future middle of hilaskomai, the subject of which is implicitly God, to whom the psalm is clearly addressed. The object of the verb is asebeias (“impieties”), which appears in the accusative case and is parallel with anomiōn (“lawless deeds”). Thus, God is the subject of the atoning action and sins are the object of that action—hence, atonement-making here concerns God’s action to expiate sin, not human action to propitiate God.
In John’s first epistle, we read that Jesus “is the atoning sacrifice (hilasmos) for our sins” (1 John 2:2; cf. 4:10). As to John’s understanding of how Jesus’ death atones for our sins, he writes that Jesus’ blood “cleanses us from all sins,” that “If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1:7, 9). Elsewhere, John writes that Jesus “was revealed to take away sins” (3:5). The effect of Jesus’ death concerning humanity’s sins is to “cleanse” (katharizō) or “remove” (airō) sin—thus, Jesus’ death as an “atoning sacrifice” (hilasmos) functions as an expiation of sin, not a propitiation of God.
In LXX Ezek 44:27, hilasmos is used to translate Hebrew hattāʾt. We have observed (Chapter 10) that in the Levitical cult hattāʾt denotes both the “sin offering” and the “purification offering”—and thus that there was really a single offering for both sin and impurity, concerning removal of pollution. In Ezekiel 44, the hilasmos belongs to a ritual of purification: “They shall not defile themselves.… After he has come clean.… On the day he goes into the inner court, to minister in the holy place, he shall offer his hilasmos …” (vv. 25–27). Whether we translate hilasmos as “sin offering” or “purification offering” or “atoning sacrifice,” the Old Testament background is purification from sin, not propitiation of God, which fits well with the context in 1 John.
J. Ramsey Michaels has argued that hilasmos in 1 John has the sense of both expiation and propitiation. The evidence he presents for the latter is that John writes of Jesus as our “advocate with (pros) the Father” in 2:1, the verse preceding that speaking of Jesus as “the atoning sacrifice (hilasmos) for our sins.” That Jesus is our advocate, he contends, “makes God the object, not the subject, of the reconciliation said to be taking place.” The Greek text does put “God” in the accusative case as the grammatical object of the preposition pros. The NIV interprets the text as does Michaels, translating this phrase “one who speaks to the Father in our defense,” which makes God the object of Jesus’ action on our behalf. The preposition pros need not imply that God is the recipient of the action of which Jesus is the agent, however—“to,” “toward,” “upon,” or “against” are not the only options for translating pros. One could just as well render pros “with,” in the sense of either “in accordance with” or “in company with.” Indeed, “with” is how many translations render pros here (cf. NAB, NASB, NET, NJB, NRSV). Such a rendering of 1 John 2:1 fits well with what Paul writes, that “the Spirit intercedes for (hyper) the saints according to (kata) the will of God” (Rom 8:27). Both God the Son and God the Spirit intercede on our behalf in accord with and in company with God the Father. As John emphasizes, Jesus’ death to expiate sin is already an expression of God’s love for us: “In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice (hilasmon) for our sins” (1 John 4:10). There is thus simply no need for Jesus to propitiate God by sacrifice in order to render God merciful toward us; for the Incarnation of the Son reveals that God has loved us from the beginning and that God’s love is the moving cause of the Son’s death “for our sins.”
The New Testament usage of hilaskomai and hilasmos, consistent with its precedent usage in the Greek Old Testament, speaks consistently of God’s atoning action in Christ directed toward sin on behalf of sinners, not human action directed toward God to satisfy God. The criterion for interpretation, Stott has said, “is whether the object of the atoning action is God or man.” “Propitiation” indicates an action by humans directed toward God, and “expiation” indicates an action by God toward sin and sinners. According to Stott’s own criterion, these texts uniformly favor “expiation” over “propitiation.” Given the choice of translating hilastērion either “propitiation” or “expiation,” therefore, “expiation” is preferable based on the textual evidence of both the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament. James Dunn summarizes well the case for preferring “expiation” to “propitiation” as a translation for hilastērion:
Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 247–252.
"Propitiation [N] http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/propitiation.html
that by which God is rendered propitious, i.e., by which it becomes consistent with his character and government to pardon and bless the sinner. The propitiation does not procure his love or make him loving; it only renders it consistent for him to execise his love towards sinners.
In Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5 (A.V., "mercy-seat") the Greek word hilasterion is used. It is the word employed by the LXX. translators in Exodus 25:17 and elsewhere as the equivalent for the Hebrew kapporeth , which means "covering," and is used of the lid of the ark of the covenant ( Exodus 25:21 ; 30:6 ). This Greek word (hilasterion) came to denote not only the mercy-seat or lid of the ark, but also propitation or reconciliation by blood. On the great day of atonement the high priest carried the blood of the sacrifice he offered for all the people within the veil and sprinkled with it the "mercy-seat," and so made propitiation.
In 1 John 2:2 ; 4:10 , Christ is called the "propitiation for our sins." Here a different Greek word is used (hilasmos). Christ is "the propitiation," because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations he expiated our guilt, covered it, by the vicarious punishment which he endured. (Compare Hebrews 2:17 , where the expression "make reconciliation" of the A.V. is more correctly in the RSV "make propitiation.")"
M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition,
published by Thomas Nelson, 1897. Public Domain, copy freely.
"Although some object to propitiation as a pagan notion of appeasing an irascible deity with bribes and gifts, the idea in the Bible is very different. Because of our sin and rebellion against God, our original communion with God has been disrupted, and our persons and lives deserve judgment. The wrath of God in the Bible is the expression of his holiness in the face of our sin. Wrath is what our sin and rebellion justly deserve. Even though God is a God of infinite love, he does not show mercy at the expense of his justice, so propitiation is the way that the loving God shows us mercy justly. In the Bible, propitiation is not something that we provide to God to get right with him again; it is something that God provides to us that we may be justly and mercifully forgiven and accepted, and he does this at his own expense through the loving gift of his Son, Jesus Christ.
Nor is Jesus on the cross, as our propitiation, trying to get his angry Father to love us. No, not at all. He is on the cross because the Father has loved us before the foundation of the world and has given him as the expression of his love. Christ’s death is the means for his saving purposes to be the propitiation we need in order to be reconciled to God. In other words, what God requires, God himself provides in Christ. And Christ willingly undertakes his work as propitiator (the one who offers the gift of propitiation) and propitiation (the gift of propitiation itself). He is, by his own choice and for our sake, priest and sacrifice, mediator, and gift."
"The background for propitiation is seen in the Old Testament covenant ceremonies and in the sacrificial system. The bloodshed in those rites represented what sin deserved. When God ratified his covenant with Abram in Genesis 15, animals were slaughtered as part of an oath of self-malediction (calling down a curse upon oneself if one is unfaithful). The slaughtered animals represented what unfaithfulness deserved: death. And in the Mosaic sacrificial system, God explicitly explains: “I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life” (Lev 17:11). That is, God—knowing that his people would sin and break his law—in love and grace provided blood sacrifice in order to turn away his just judgment from falling on them, assure his continued fellowship with them, and cover their sin in his sight."
Ligon Duncan, Propitiation, The Gospel Coalition https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/propitiation/
From the article
In the Bible, propitiation is not something that we provide to God to get right with him again; it is something that God provides to us that we may be justly and mercifully forgiven and accepted, and he does this at his own expense through the loving gift of his Son, Jesus Christ.
so who is being propitiated
2 Corinthians 5:19 (ESV)
19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
God is the actor not the one being acted on
Break it down:
"propitiation is not something that we provide to God to get right with him again":
What can we provide to God that He does not already have? Is there anything that we could ever give God that would turn away His wrath on its own? We offended God. Who are we to believe that we could ever make propitiation on our own terms? God has shown again and again in scripture that He provides the way that we can appease/make propitiation. With Adam and Eve, God Himself sacrificed the first animal for their sin, and clothed them. With Noah, God provided a way for humanity to survive in the person and family of Noah. Apparently, no one else alive on the planet, which could have been heavily populated, who knows, could figure out the formula for propitiation and save themselves. No amount of sacrifices would have saved Israel from God on behalf of Achan. Joshua did not act on his own. Achan and his family died, and his possessions were destroyed. Only then did God turn away from His intense anger in punishing all of Israel due to the actions of one person. The rest of Israel was innocent, right? So why did God punish all the innocent people, for the sake of one? (The answer is in the verses. Joshua did not speak his own mind.)
Joshua 6 " 16 And at the seventh time, when the priests blew the trumpets, Joshua said to the people, “Shout! For the Lord has given you the city. 17 But the city shall be designated for [e]destruction, it and everything that is in it belongs to the Lord; only Rahab the prostitute [f]and all who are with her in the house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent. 18 But as for you, only keep yourselves from the things designated for destruction, so that you do not covet them and take some of the designated things, and turn the camp of Israel into something designated for destruction and bring disaster on it."
Joshua 7 "1 But the sons of Israel acted unfaithfully regarding the things designated for destruction, for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, took some of the designated things; therefore the anger of the Lord burned against the sons of Israel."
" 20 So Achan answered Joshua and said, “Truly, I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel, and [i]this is what I did: 21 when I saw among the spoils a beautiful robe from Shinar, two hundred shekels of silver, and a bar of gold fifty shekels in weight, then I wanted them and took them; and behold, they are hidden in the ground inside my tent, with the silver underneath.”
22 So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent; and behold, it was hidden in his tent with the silver underneath it. 23 So they took them from inside the tent and brought them to Joshua and to all the sons of Israel; and they [j]laid them out before the Lord. 24 Then Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the bar of gold, his sons, his daughters, his [k]oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and all that belonged to him; and they brought them up to the Valley of [l]Achor. 25 And Joshua said, “Why have you brought disaster on us? The Lord will bring disaster on you this day.” And all Israel stoned [m]them with stones; and they burned them with fire [n]after they had stoned them with stones. 26 Then they erected over him a large heap of stones that stands to this day, and the Lord turned from the fierceness of His anger. Therefore the name of that place has been called the Valley of [o]Achor to this day."
How was God appeased? The death of the criminal, his family, and the destruction of all his possessions. Is there a reason to say that God did not tell Joshua what to do? I mean, He may not, but Joshua is written in a narrative form. Joshua said things that one can almost say it is obvious that God told him to say, and told him to do. (I don't think Joshua made up the whole, you have to march around the city six times, and then on the seventh day, seven times and this is the formula that would still be given in the 21st century to destroy satanic strongholds...) Yes, I have issues with those who believe that we, through butchering of scripture, can come up with our own ways of appeasing God, and living life.
One thing I didn't fully grasp/understand when I first joined the military, is just how responsibility works. As a Captain, as a leader of a unit, you are responsible for the actions of those subordinate to yourself. So when a Soldier screws up, the CO takes a hit, and can decide whether or not to take it out on the Soldier who screwed up, or the whole unit. (There was a tanker Captain who liked teaching the new Soldiers all kinds of things, and answer all kinds of questions.) If you want to see just how God views justice, just look at the military. George Washington, as general, hung the leadership involved in rebellion, against the cries of their subordinates. I mean, weeping, wailing, real cries. He didn't want to execute them, but understood that discipline had to be maintained, no matter the cost. They had to be punished, lest acts of rebellion spread through the troops. We are/were in active rebellion against God, yet God, in His mercy, allows us to continue living, which serves to spread the rebellion. Why? That those who will believe might be saved. God was willing to suffer such rebellion that He might reconcile with His creation, with those who will believe, through His Son, who paid their penalty, making them right with God.
"it is something that God provides to us that we may be justly and mercifully forgiven and accepted"
God provided Israel with the sacrificial system, that they might make atonement for their sins. Yet, even so, in the law, God specifically orders the death of the law breaker, appeasing Him. There is no propitiation for some sins given in the law. No breaks. God is clear what would happen if Israel refused to follow His law. He makes it clear that He is the one who makes the way for propitiation. This is clear with king Josiah, where God basically told Josiah that it was too little, too late, but God would stay His anger/wrath until after Josiah was dead. Granted, God sped this up by having Josiah die in battle, and not naturally.
God provided us the perfect lamb, that would make propitiation for all our sins (save one). However, like with Israel, that propitiation is made only for the community of believers, as the sacrifice of atonement was only for the community of Israel, not any surrounding nations/gentiles. The community of believers is the elect/the chosen, also known as the church, the body of Christ. He fulfilled the law in Himself, by taking upon Himself our penalty, our sin, and as the perfect, unblemished, sinless sacrifice, made propitiation for us.
"and he does this at his own expense through the loving gift of his Son, Jesus Christ."
He provided the lamb for sacrifice, we did not. He provided...Himself. He would be the propitiation for our sins, the one who would pay the penalty due to us. If that is not love, then no one has any idea what love is. Jesus Himself said "No greater love has any man then that he lay down his life for his friends." To do so for friends (believers) who at the time were His enemy...speaks volumes. He died in their place.
Last edited:
Dizerner
Well-known member
False dichotomy, it's both.
Not in this verse it is not
2 Corinthians 5:18-19 (KJV)
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Now do you have a verse which actually states what you claim?
and the answer to the question
so who is being propitiated
2 Corinthians 5:19 (ESV)
19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
Is what ?
God is the actor not the one being acted on in that verse
God is being propitiated. Is there someone more important, more supreme then God that I might be forgetting? Is there someone else we have offended and sinned against of the heavenly illuminaries? Who am I missing? Allah? Perhaps Buddah? That Zeus guy, I mean, after research he isn't at all a happy father, much less a family guy. I mean, how do you appease angry gods hellbent on destroying your society? Well... you could ask them. Or, better yet, they could just tell you. In the Old Testament God acted, and told Moses and the Israelites, how they could make propitiation for their sins TO HIM, through sin offerings. So for an extended period of time, the high priest, and the priests offered propitiatory sacrifices on behalf of themselves, and the people.
However, then came the day that God provided a lamb for Himself, His own Son. The one who offered the sacrifice, as well as the sacrifice, all in one person. High Priest and sacrifice. The people who caused/brought about the sacrifice (the Romans and the Jews), the one who offered sacrifice on their behalf and on behalf of the world (the High Priest), and the Lamb of God, the sacrifice. Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world. Jesus was a propitiatory sacrifice for the world. However, it started as just for the Jews, until Peter visit Cornelius and God showed that it was for the Gentiles as well.
Context:
"16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one [f]by the flesh; even though we have known Christ by the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, this person is a new [g]creation; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their wrongdoings against them, and [h]He has [i]committed to us the word of reconciliation."
1. In Christ, God reconciled the world...to Himself. It started with God, and ended...with God.
2. In Christ, God did not count their trespasses against them. Why not? He was counting them against Christ. In other words, their penalty was falling upon Jesus. *PENALTY*. The penalty is death.
3. In Christ, God has committed to us (I really think Paul means the apostles here, but I could be wrong) the word of reconciliation. Why do I start this with in Christ again, like the other two? Because the reconciliation is in/through Christ.
It doesn't matter. One verse does not make an entire Bible. In scripture, Jesus is a propitiatory sacrifice, provided by God to us. Just as God provided the first sacrifice in recorded history, when he killed (sacrificed?) animals for Adam and Eve, and made them clothing. God provided the Ram that replaced Isaac as a sacrifice. (Even the New Testament sticks with this allusion to Christ.) One big takeaway is when Isaac, who was curious, asked about the sacrifice, and Abraham said that God would provide. He did. A substitute for Isaac. He provided the sacrifice that He received from Abraham.
Better read the text
observe the grammar
2 Corinthians 5:19 (KJV)
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
God is the subject
the World is the object
The view of a commentary on this verse:
"(19) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world.—Better, perhaps, How that it was God who was reconciling in Christ a world unto Himself. Both “God” and “world” are, in the Greek, without the article. The English rendering is tenable grammatically, but the position of the words in the original suggests the construction given above. He seems to emphasise the greatness of the redeeming work by pointing at once to its author and its extent. The structure is the same as the “was preaching” of Luke 4:44. All the English versions, however, from Wiclif downwards, adopt the same construction. Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva version translate, making agreement between the world and Himself instead of “reconciling to Himself.” The “world” is, of course, the world of men, the “all” of 2Corinthians 5:15.
Not imputing their trespasses unto them . . .—The two participial clauses that follow describe the result of the reconciling work. The first is that God no longer charges their transgressions against men: the pronouns being used in the third person plural, as being more individualising than the “world,” and more appropriate than would have been the first person, which he had used in 2Corinthians 5:18, and which he wanted, in its narrower extension, for the clause which was to follow. The word for “imputing,” or reckoning, is specially prominent in the Epistles of this period, occurring, though in very varied shades of meaning, eight times in this Epistle and nineteen times in that to the Romans. The difficulty of maintaining a logical coherence of this truth with that of a judgment according to works does not present itself to the Apostle’s mind, and need not trouble us. (See Note on 2Corinthians 5:10.)
And hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.—Literally, to maintain the participial construction, placing with (or in) us the word of reconciliation. Tyndale gives “atonement” here, as in Romans 5:11."
So I wasn't perfect, but here he does get across what I was getting across. Because of what Jesus did (having sin imputed to Himself, so that He bore the sin and paid the penalty we owed) God was not imputing their trespasses unto them. As said above, this is the result of what Jesus did. Unlike what you say, God cannot ignore sin, snap His fingers and make it go away. That would destroy God's holiness. Nahum states that God will never acquit the wicked. Everyone is wicked at one point in their life (if they become a believer), or all their lives (if they do not). God did not acquit the believer. Jesus took their penalty, their punishment, in their place. By law, if this happens, they go free. If you have a debt that you cannot pay, but someone else comes in and pays it for you, the company doesn't make you pay anyway. They forgive the debt because someone else paid it off for you. It is the same thing here. We owed a debt (penalty) to God which we could never hope to pay, and God sent Jesus to pay that debt (penalty) so God could then forgive us, and reconcile with us. It is not that we miraculously show that we never had a debt, we were not acquitted. There is just a huge stamp on it that says "Paid in Full".
What do i care about a commentary when
you are not dealing with the grammar of the verse
This is scripture
2 Corinthians 5:19 (KJV)
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
God is the subject
the World is the object
The world is being reconciled not God
The commentary covered the grammar of the verse. I know, when properly exegeted it goes against what you believe, but that isn't an excuse.
Which does not warrant your mishandling.
"not imputing their trespasses unto them" is the result of the reconciling. Why? Their trespasses had been imputed to Christ. And, as the commentary speaks of the GRAMMAR, their in this part of the verse, is aimed towards individuals.
Not that I saw
God was the subject not the object
You tried to make God the object but the grammar makes him the subject
Maybe an elementary grammar would be of help to you
2 Corinthians 5:19 (ESV)
19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
God is t5he actor - the one doing the reconciling
it is the world which is being reconciled
You do realize that there is more to the verse, which you ignore, because the grammar explained in the comment, which if anyone here actually read it, and then read what you said, would be scratching their heads. God was reconciling...to himself. Reconciling in Christ. It comes full circle, which you deny.
You have not done a single thing to show God was being reconciled by Christ on the cross
Hello
God was reconciling the world to himself
Christ was not reconciling God
2 Corinthians 5:11-20 (ESV)
11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.
12 We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart.
13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you.
14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died;
15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
no matter how you put it the idea God was the object of the reconciliation - the one being reconciled is not found in the text
Know, I said that God was reconciling the world, to Himself, in Christ. God is the actor, and God is the final destination. He was reconciling to himself. Men are not reconciling with God.
Wait... you actually believe I said that... *snicker*. Read what I said again. ". God was reconciling...to himself. Reconciling in Christ. It comes full circle, which you deny." Those dots are where the in Christ and the world were.