This material comes from the YouTube video and site, Deconstruct and Level Up, by J. C. Lamont, titled “The Bad Exegesis of PSA.” I did my best to represent her viewpoint, and I have added my comments when appropriate.
She discusses five problems with the PSA theory. The first of these logical exegetical fallacies used by evangelicals is the Genre Fallacy. Her approach aligns with the traditional church understanding of the Bible and atonement—literal, historical, and grammatical. She deconstructs Original Sin and the PSA atonement theory. I immediately liked her because she isn’t afraid to speak out when the evangelical church has been misled, unlike most evangelicals who lack the courage to confront the falsehoods that have crept into Christianity.
Exegetical Fallacy 1 is the Genre Fallacy
The law in Leviticus or Paul’s letter should be read clearly. The law in the first five books of the Bible is emphasized, explained in detail, and applied throughout the rest of Scripture. The meaning of words in the Old Testament law should stay consistent in other Old Testament or New Testament books. However, some books like Psalms and Proverbs use poetic, hyperbolic, or other figures of speech. The rule is that if a supposed doctrine is found only or mainly in Psalms, Writings, Proverbs, Job, and is not clearly supported elsewhere in Scripture, it is not correct and can lead to wrong conclusions. Poetry in Scripture reflects truth, but the law of God is firm, and no interpretation can contradict the law and still be valid. If it does, we need to reexamine.
For example, Isaiah 53 is poetry and cannot contradict the law outlined in Deuteronomy and Leviticus 16. The Day of Atonement sacrifice involved two goats. One goat, the scapegoat, had sins placed on him, was sent into the wilderness, and lived. The other goat died for the sins of the people. PSA advocates often cite Isaiah 53 to support their interpretation. They see the suffering servant as having sins placed on Him and dying as a punishment to satisfy God’s wrath or to pay a debt we owe for our sins. However, this is not what the annual Day of Atonement declares. What is wrong with how we understand Isaiah 53? We tend not to question our doctrines when they conflict with the clear instructions of the law in Leviticus 16. And this tendency is common in many Protestant circles.
Another example is when people use the Psalms to support the doctrine of Original Sin. The Jews and early Christians did not believe that babies are born sinners and guilty of Adam’s sin. They believed that we are not born sinners but that we are born neutral and must choose to sin. The Eastern church also teaches that we are born neutral, not sinners. This traditional understanding comes from the law of God, where He commands us to make a choice: to choose life and live or to choose death and die. The Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Joshua reveal these truths. From this, the Jews came to understand our free will.
In the 16th century, Luther believed there was no free will, similar to Augustine’s belief in the 5th century. She referenced a theological book by Wayne Grudem, *Systematic Theology*, used by Protestants. Grudem supports the doctrine of Original Sin. He states, “Until a person is a Christian, they do not have the freedom in the most important sense of freedom—that is, the freedom to do what is pleasing to God.” Wayne Grudem, *Systematic Theology*, 2nd edition, p. 627. Wayne favors the PSA theory and rejects the law. Most of the proof texts for PSA/Calvinism come from the Psalms. This presents a significant flaw and problem.
For example, Psalm 51:5, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” NIV. King David is lamenting his sins of murder and adultery. He uses hyperbole. Why? Because no Jew at that time or any other time believed anything but that humans have free will to choose God or not. They believed, along with early Christians, that we are sinners by choice, not by decree or due to Original Sin. The same idea persisted in the early church until Augustine introduced the concept of original sin. Centuries later, Martin Luther, an Augustinian Roman Catholic priest, made this a focal point. Like Augustine, he did not believe in free will. King David is expressing his sorrow, grief, and remorse over his sins. He was not introducing the concept of being born a sinner, as Augustinian Calvinists believe.
Another example is Psalm 58:3. “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born speaking lies.” KJV. The meaning of this verse is that the wicked become sinners very early in life, not that they are born that way. Even Luther understood that the Jews and the early church did not see this Psalm as teaching that there is no free will and that people are born sinners.
There are other passages in Romans and elsewhere that are used to teach Original Sin. Even if Original Sin is an accurate doctrine, Psalm 51:5 and 58:3 do not exegetically teach Original Sin as many Calvinists believe.
Exegetical Fallacy 2 is Hyper Literalism
When a verse is taken more literally than the author intended, for example, when the wise men came to worship the newborn King of the Jews. To see Jesus, these wise men stopped by King Herod to ask where the newborn king might be. The verse says ‘all’ Jerusalem was worried about Herod, but it really just means that Herod’s leadership team or all the key people in Jerusalem were worried, not that infants and toddlers were worried. In other words, ‘All’ doesn’t mean 100%. Not every single person was worried. That word for ‘all’ is also used in Romans 3:23, which we hear quoted so often. “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” That verse is used as a proof text for Original Sin because of the word ‘all’. All includes every infant, according to them. But that is a stretch and not a normal use of language. (See my article, All Have Sinned.)
Elsewhere, it is written that Jesus is the savior of all people. Unless you embrace the lie of universalism, you do not believe that everyone is saved and going to heaven. All does not mean 100%. There are other examples.
She makes the following statement, “Just for the record, I am not making up these fallacies. These are fallacies Evangelicals warn people not to commit. I am just applying them to ALL doctrines because I do not think ANY doctrine should be exempt. I personally don’t want to hold a doctrine that requires bad exegesis to make it ‘Biblical’.” Amen to that.
If the apostle Paul does introduce the concept of Original Sin, Paul is not doing that in Romans 3:23, because that would commit the exegetical fallacy of hyper literalism.
Exegetical Fallacy 3 is the Devotional Hermeneutic.
Evangelicals often misuse this error: using a verse and applying it personally. She says the most common example is this: “I know the plans I have for you, plans to prosper you and give you a future and not to harm you.” Many apply this to themselves, but God said this about the nation of Israel. So, what if a high school graduate receives a card with this promise and then is killed in a car accident? Were those God’s plans? Or if someone goes off to war and is harmed or killed, is that verse false? Why trust God if that promise isn’t true? Many who are disappointed with God’s plan for themselves or their loved ones might see the Bible as false. Israel was going into captivity and intermarriage in Babylon as captives, which would mean they were no longer a distinct people. Naturally, Jews would wonder how the Messiah could come from pure Jewish blood if they are all assimilated into pagan culture. Will they return as God promised? God was telling these Jews that He has a plan for them and that His plans are still good. That’s the context of this promise. When Christians take that verse and apply it to every Christian everywhere, it doesn’t work because some die, some are killed, and some abandon their faith. This might cause them not to trust God. But when God uses that verse to speak to you personally, then believe it because He has applied it to you.
Exegetical Fallacy 4 is the Semantic Misdefinition.
This occurs when we apply the wrong definition to a word. For example, my pet dog is small and furry, and she purrs frequently. But that animal being described is a cat and not a dog. One is a feline and the other is a canine. Hebrews 9:22, the second half states this, “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.” What do we mean by the word forgiveness? In PSA, the word implies reconciliation or restoration of favor. Without a sacrifice, God’s favor can’t be restored to you without the shedding of blood. The problem with that is that in PSA atonement theory, “without the shedding of blood (punishment of sin) there is no forgiveness (restoration of favor.) This is the PSA interpretation. The problem is that the Greek word in this passage is not the same Greek word for punishment, but is the Greek word for cancellation of penalty or punishment, according to her.
We end up with a nonsensical statement: “Without the punishment of sin, there is no cancellation of punishment.” That makes no sense. And because the PSA atonement theory needs this faulty interpretation, we end up with this nonsensical meaning. This is the exegetical fallacy of Semantic misdefinition. Shedding of blood must be penalized, so the PSA theory uses the wrong definition. She thinks they do this innocently. I pray she is correct.
But the verse says, “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness (cancellation of the punishment).” What does the shedding of blood accomplish? It purifies us from sin, and our record of sin is wiped away or cleansed. The purging or wiping away of sin is what the shedding of blood accomplishes. When we interpret this to mean that the shedding of blood appeases God’s wrath or is punishment for sins, we have the PSA problem. God chose this Greek word, and we are not allowed to change the definition of that word simply to support our doctrines. She makes a great point.
Exegetical fallacy 5 is the fallacy of Illegitimate Total Transfer.
If a word can have two meanings, then both meanings are acceptable according to this fallacy. However, just because a word can mean x or y, it doesn’t mean it means both at the same time. That is false. For example, the word “run” has many meanings. A person can run for exercise, run a business, or run for political office. If someone says they run a business, we don’t assume they are sprinting around their office; instead, we understand they are in charge of the business. Nor do we assume that when they say they “run’ for political office, they are simultaneously running.
Just because a word, like the word ‘run,’ can mean a variety of things, does not mean that the word ‘run’ actually means all of those things. If a word in scripture has meant one thing for hundreds of years, it cannot mean something different now just to support your doctrines. Propitiation cannot mean both cleanse and satisfy, as in satisfying the wrath of God, and appeasement. It means to cleanse only.
For example, consider the word expiate/expiation AKA propitiate/propitiation. In Leviticus 16, which talks about the day of atonement, the Bible tells the Jewish people what the day of atonement is all about. Leviticus 16:30 reads, “On this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins.” The KJV writes this, “For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.”
Hebrews 9 and 10 say Jesus fulfilled this sacrifice once and for all. Atonement means “at-one-ment”. They are now at one with God because they are now cleansed from the pollution of sin. Sin is cleansed of its pollution. The atonement is God’s once-a-year spring cleaning, she says. Nothing in this passage mentions the wrath of God needing to be appeased. When the Jews translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, they chose a Greek word, hilasmos, a noun, and ekhilasetai, a verb, to convey the concept of atonement. Later in 1 John 2:2 we read, “He is the propitiation (hilasmos) for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Then much later in the 4th century the Latin Vulgate used the word propitiate for hilasmos in 1 John 2;2 and expiate for hilasmos in Lev 16:30. Both words are synonymous.
Go to the online etymonline dictionary. We can see that the word “expiation” means the act of making satisfaction, atonement, reparations, making amends, purging by sacrifice, making good, propitiation, appease. It can have all these meanings. Why is that a problem? Because expiation or atonement meant to purge or cleanse from sin. To change the definition now, 1600 years later, to tell to expiate or to appease the wrath of God, is in error. God did not have wrath against the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting, or the altar that all needed to be cleansed or atoned for, but did not need to be appeased. No animal was killed so that God did not have to kill/destroy His Most Holy place, the tent of the meeting, or the altar to satisfy the demands of Divine justice. That is using an ahistoric hermeneutic (hermeneutics is the science of interpretation of scripture) and also engaging in the fallacy of Illegitimate Total Transfer. You can’t assign every possible definition to the word, but only the meaning of the word as used initially.
Type 1 John 2:2 into Bible Hub, which provides most translations, both modern and ancient, along with many other Bible study tools. Before the 1611 KJV, the old meaning of this Greek word was still associated with cleansing and purging from sin. However, she says that the 1611 KJV changed that by using the word ‘propitiation,’ which allows for the concept of PSA. This is very interesting, especially considering the context of that version. Over the previous century, the Christian world changed dramatically with the Protestant Reformation starting in 1517 under Luther and Calvin—a widespread rejection of the Roman Catholic Church.
I checked the Bible Hub site for this. The Geneva Bible of 1587 states: “And he is the reconciliation for our sinnes (sins): not for our sinnes only, but also for the sinnnes of the whole world.” Emphasis added. Spelling has changed over the centuries. This Bible uses the word reconciliation (not propitiation), which is a term used in scripture. In the mid-1800s, Charles Finney described “reconciliation” as a meaning of the word propitiation. Very interesting.
The Bishops’ Bible of 1586 states: “And he is ye attonement (atonement) for our sinnes: not for our sinnes only, but also for the sinnes of all the worlde.”
The Coverdale Bible of 1585 states this: “And he it is that obtaineth (obtains or obtaineth) grace for oure (our) synnes: not for oure synnes only (only), but also for the synnes of all the worlde.”
The Tyndale Bible of 1525 states: “And he it is that obteyneth (obtains), grace for oure synnes: not for oure synnes only: but also for the synnes of all the worlde.”
Other modern Bible translations use the following for the word ‘propitiation’.
NIV = atoning sacrifice
New Living Translation = the sacrifice that atones
Berean Study Bible = atoning sacrifice
World English Bible = atoning sacrifice
Most Bible translations use the word ‘propitiation’, which, according to her, allows for the wrong interpretation of the word atonement and gives us the false PSA theory. Yet Finney, in the early to mid-1800s, understood the word ‘propitiation’ to mean that Christ’s death “met the righteous demands” of the broken moral law (not to satisfy God’s wrath), making it possible for God, as moral governor, to forgive, to appease. “That he might be just and the justifier of that believeth in Jesus.” Romans 3:26. Finney Systematic Theology, page 433. According to Finney, the atonement met the demands of public justice, not retributive justice as in the PSA theory. In the atonement, God made it clear that sin is nothing to be taken lightly. Sin brings death. The atonement was not a payment to satisfy the wrath of God or to meet the demands of retributive justice and make God inclined to forgive. God was already inclined to forgive if people would only repent and return to Him in obedience and love.
Finney’s defined atonement is as follows, page 427. “To cover, the governmental provision to forgive sin upon man meeting the necessary conditions (repentance and faith), reconciliation”. Finney’s governmental view of the atonement is “God is not to be regarded merely as an offended party, but as the moral governor of the universe. He must, therefore, uphold the authority of His government in the interests of the general good. Consequently, the sufferings of Christ are to be regarded, not as the exact equivalent of our punishment (as in PSA), but only in the sense that the dignity of the government was thereby upheld and vindicated as effectively as it would have been if we had received the punishment we deserved”. Page 428, emphasis added. No doubt that Finney would agree that the atonement of Christ was a cleansing of sin based on repentance and faith. But it was also done to uphold the moral law of God, who is the sovereign ruler of the universe. The public’s well-being necessitated this.
In Leviticus 16, an annual atonement was needed to cleanse not only the high priest and the people but also to atone or cleanse the entire temple and its parts. But why? The why might be that God needs to remind the people that sin pollutes everything it touches. God could have simply forgiven all of them without the annual atonement sacrifice, but what message would that send? Why would anyone believe the sin is deadly and must be avoided? Could it be that cleansing from sin and forgiveness without an atonement, repentance, and faith would encourage further sinning?
Of course, there are more than five fallacies. She covered the five most important fallacies.
More from scholar J. C. Lamont.
Is PSA Biblical and exegetical?Do PSA Bible verses use the literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic?
Definition of Hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation, especially of philosophical, biblical, and wisdom texts. It also includes the study of the principles and methodology for interpreting texts. It can also refer to the art of communication and understanding.
Definition of Exegesis. The actual practice of interpreting a text is distinct from hermeneutics, which is the discipline that examines various theories and approaches for interpretation. Hermeneutics also includes the process of eisegesis. Mostly done consciously.
Definition of Eisegesis. Reading into a text a meaning that isn’t there unless it is forced. Often done unconsciously.
Definition of the Evangelical Hermeneutic. It is a rational hermeneutic based on the understanding that the affirmations of biblical writers are the authoritative affirmations of God Himself. Extracting these truths through exegesis is the goal, so they can be applied to men and women and their problems and issues today. There are four major types of biblical hermeneutics that have emerged throughout history, although only the first one is widely accepted today among evangelical churches.
- Literal interpretation
- Moral interpretation
- Allegorical interpretation. Use of symbols to convey a hidden meaning.
- Analogical interpretation. Comparison or correspondence between two things.
7 Key principles for interpreting the Bible
- Listen for the truth
- Understand the context
- Let scripture interpret scripture
- Read from the text, and not into it
- Trust the clarity of scripture
- Recognize literal and figurative language
- Handle interpretation disagreements wisely
She has a video regarding the PSA theory of the atonement, that Jesus was punished as our substitute. He paid the penalty for our sin, satisfying God’s righteous demands that all sin is punished and to satisfy His wrath, so we don’t have to pay it. This video looks at the PSA proof texts:
1 John 2:2 Romans 3:25 1 John 4:10 Hebrews 2:17 Hebrews 9:22 Isaiah 53:11
Romans 1:17 Romans 6:23
Do proponents of PSA use the literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic — focusing on the intended meaning of the authors, the grammar of the original language, and the historical context of the author that aligns with the overall story of redemption or the complete canon of Scripture — with the NT illuminating the OT? Or do PSA advocates rely on a metaphysical, metaphorical, ahistorical, ungrammatical, and anachronistic hermeneutic? She demonstrates that PSA proponents improperly rely on the latter.
The meaning of the word “Gay” as an example
She used the lyrics from a Christmas Carol, Deck the Halls, written in the late 1800s, to demonstrate the difference between the two hermeneutical models.’ This was interesting and instructive. In this song, there are a number of lyrics that this generation might misinterpret. I will cover just one, “Don we now our gay apparel.” What did that mean in the day when the songwriter wrote these lyrics? She and common sense assure us that it had nothing at all to do with cross-dressing and advancing the LGBTQ agenda. The word gay did not mean gay rights, nor did it have anything to do with homosexuality.
She says, “In the lyrics to this song, a person today with a ‘minimalistic lifestyle’ might see the meaning of these song lyrics metaphorically, meaning that the celebration gets no more elaborate than using ‘boughs of holly’ to decorate the holidays. A ‘new ager’ might view scripture through the lens of metaphysics, a person devoted to ‘intermittent fasting for dietary purposes’ might use an ungrammatical interpretation of the phrase “fast away the old year passes” as a plea to fast. And a ‘LGBTQ and Pride advocate’ may see things ahistoric”.
And so it goes that without a clear understanding of the author’s intent in the late 1800s, many varied interpretations might be given incorrectly with respect to the meaning and interpretation of this song, Deck the Halls. All that makes perfect sense, right?
In the late 1800s, ‘gay’ most certainly did not mean LGBTQ support. The songwriter meant for them to dress in joyful and festive apparel. Inserting our cultural bias into the lyrics is the non-evangelical hermeneutic and is eisegesis, not exegesis. It is the insertion of our own bias into the written word to justify our interpretation and possibly to deceive others. Using the metaphysical (a philosophical understanding of reality and existence), metaphorical (allegorical), ungrammatical, ahistorical, anachronistic (belonging to a period of time other than that being portrayed, belonging to or appropriate to an earlier period, conspicuously old-fashioned) hermeneutic will most always lead to error.
The word “Gay” used in the 1611 KJV of the Bible
In James 2 verse 3 and 4 it is written, “And ye have respect to him that weareth “gay clothing”, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or site here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?, emphasis added.” ‘Gay’ had nothing to do with homosexuality. Much has changed over the years with respect to the definition of the word gay.
Lamont used the example of the song, ‘Deck the Halls,’ where a person could come away with very different meanings of the song by not using a literal, historical, and grammatical hermeneutic. Why would anyone want to use this later method? They have been trained that way, and cultural influences motivate them to interpret things according to contemporary culture. We do this all the time, and words change meaning over time. But we must go back to the author’s intentions, in their historical context, to really understand what is being communicated. Eisegesis (letting our own bias determine the meaning) is usually done unintentionally, for the most part. Exegesis must be intentional.
Test yourself to see if you are in the faith.
She uses this quote. “All of us have biases, cultural backgrounds, spiritual environments we grew up in, and ways of thinking that might influence how we see God in an erroneous way…An unexamined faith is not worth believing. An examined faith is a healthy faith. That’s why it’s important that we examine and reexamine our beliefs. Every Christian should know what they believe and why they believe it.” The book, The Deconstruction of Christianity, by authors Elisa Childers and Tim Barnett, makes this point. I agree, even if it is painful to do so. This quote reminds me of what Charles Finney said: “If you will not think, you can’t be saved”. How sad it is that most of evangelical Christianity is more focused on how we feel than what we think and why we think it.
When some of us hear the phrase “Deconstructing Christianity,” we might think about the liberal or progressive efforts happening today that are said to deconstruct Christianity by embracing godless ideas, such as the acceptance of homosexuality. However, that is not what J. C. Lamont and the authors of this book mean. They use this phrase to refer to the refining of Christian truth. For example, rejecting the myth of Original Sin is one instance, and rejecting PSA is another example of a needed deconstruction of Christianity. Are you with me?
What is your epistemic commitment?
“This epistemic commitment is the obligation, which may be withdrawn only under appropriate conditions, to uphold the factual truth of a given proposition, and to provide reasons for one’s belief in that proposition”, according to J. C. Lamont. Epistemic means ‘of, or relating to knowledge’. This epistemic commitment is fundamental to a person’s reasoning.
Wikipedia uses this story as an example. “Joe states that whales are gentle giants, and as such, they should never be killed. Susan responds that killer whales are not gentle; in fact, they eat seal pups. Joe, instead of revising his earlier proposition based on this new information, asserts that killer whales must not actually be whales because all true whales eat plankton and not baby seals. Joe has now redefined what it means to be a whale to suit his argument. Susan gives Joe a book that states scientifically that killer whales are whales, and Joe may or may not decide to withdraw his epistemic commitment to all whales being gentle.
That epistemic commitment determines your hermeneutic approach to interpreting scripture, which determines your exegesis. If you are committed to a systematic theology such as Calvinism or Arminianism, then your exegesis will follow. But if you are committed to a historical, literal, grammatical hermeneutic, and not your systematic doctrines, then your exegesis will follow. And you may indeed need to change your understanding of doctrine. (For instance, the Book, Animal Farm, was not meant to be literal but to demonstrate the evils of communism). From personal experience, I understand this very well. My epistemic commitment has always been to know the truth. As such, I have had to reject much of what I was taught as a child and what I was taught as a new believer in Jesus Christ. For instance, I came to reject the doctrine of the pretribulation rapture. I also came to reject all of Calvinism and the doctrine of eternal security, which was very challenging and hard to do because that is what I was taught as a new believer. Nonetheless, I came to understand that it was not actually taught in the Bible after much study and a willingness to go wherever the truth of the Word of God led me. The importance of this epistemic commitment can’t be overstated, in my opinion.
According to Lamont, in Colossians 2:14, the document nailed to the cross is not explicitly told to us. It is interpreted by PSA proponents as the penalty paid for by Christ, as our substitute, for our sins. PSA maintains that it was the document stating that ‘Divine Justice Demands Satisfaction’. The penalty for all sin must be paid to satisfy Divine Justice and the wrath of God against sin. Where does that come from? She quotes Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology. He says this PSA theory is the heart of the gospel, that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. He uses the four verses below that say Christ is the propitiation for our sins.
Romans 3:25 tells us that God put forward Christ as a propitiation, a word that means, “a sacrifice that bears God’s wrath to the end and in so doing changes God’s wrath toward us into favor.” The other three verses are:
Hebrews 2:17
1 John 2:2
1 John 4:10
Grudem states that the Greek terms used in these four passages (the verb, hilaskomai, to make propitiation, and the noun hilasmos, a sacrifice of propitiation) have all the sense of a ‘sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God, and thereby makes God propitious (or favorable) toward us.” The authors of these books of the Bible, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, all use the word propitiation. That proves their PSA interpretation, according to Grudem. Is that really the case? No, it is not.
The author states that in the fourth century, the Latin language used the words that give us the word propitiation. They took the Greek word (hilasmos) and related words and interpreted it as the Latinized word, propitiation. Where does that come from? In the Hebrew language, it is the word “Yom Kippur. That Hebrew word was translated into hilasmos (Greek Septuagint of the Hebrew Bible). From there, it was translated into the Latin words: expiatio (removal/purge by sacrifice) and propitio (favor/grace). All these words mean the same thing. Today we use the word ‘atonement.’ Atonement comes from the Greek word (hilasmos). Jesus is our atonement. We might say the Day of hilasmos, the Day of Propitiation, or the Day of Atonement. All mean the same basic thing. Initially, hilasmos, yom kippur, expiation, propitio, and atonement all meant “remove/purge by sacrifice, favor/grace.” What changed?
Webster’s dictionary definition of atonement today is ‘reparation for an offense or injury: satisfaction. For example, “He wanted to find a way to make atonement for his sins.” The day God’s wrath was appeased or satisfied is how atonement is often understood today. But if you look closely at the Webster definition, you will notice that the ‘obsolete’ meaning was understood to mean reconciliation, not reparations for an offense or injury. Words change meaning over time. For instance, the word ‘gay’ in the 1860s meant happy or festive, in the 1920s, gay meant sexually uninhibited, in the 1950s, gay meant same sex attraction between males, and in the 2000s, gay came to mean same sex attraction in general. The same goes for propitiation and atonement; their meaning have changed over time. Another example might be helpful. The KJV Bible uses the word ‘replenish’ in verse 28 of the first chapter of the book of Genesis. “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.” In 1611, the word ‘replenish’ meant “to fill”. Today, the word ‘replenish’ means to “fill again”. The 1828 Dictionary will verify this change. To fill and fill again have very different meanings.
Back to Webster’s Dictionary, and the ‘obsolete’ definition for atonement is reconciliation. The original meaning of the word atonement is that two people are at-one-ment, in other words, that these two people are reconciled. It did not mean that the divine justice of God or the wrath of God needed to be appeased and or satisfied.
What cultural influences made the definition of atonement change from reconciliation to satisfaction?
Leviticus 16:30 addresses the Day of Atonement. On that day, all temple objects were cleansed, including mankind. Sin polluted everything, and God wanted to wash it all so that He could be reconciled with man. He is at one with man and all that is in the tabernacle. The scapegoat, on the day of atonement, takes the sins of the people into the wilderness. The other goat’s blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat. We understand that from Leviticus 16, blood cleanses and makes reconciliation possible. Sin and corruption are removed in the atonement. This is the Day of Favor, Grace, and Reconciliation, where sins are removed. The New Testament confirms this in Hebrews 9:22, that blood cleanses. There is nothing about appeasing wrath in divine justice or satisfying the wrath of God.
New Testament writers believed that Jesus fulfilled the Day of Atonement. The blood of goats could not suffice, but the perfect sacrifice of Christ did, once for all and not to be repeated. Christ fulfilled the Day of Atonement. Therefore, according to the author, the document nailed to the cross was the record of our sins, which is cleansed and removed based on Christ’s offering of Himself and our repentance toward God. That was a defeat for Satan. Satan believes that our sins make us part of his kingdom. Satan does not own us, but we either serve God or we serve ourselves and Satan. Some theologians talk about Satan owning us, but I think that is an overstatement. We serve Satan voluntarily by rejecting God’s Lordship over us. We choose to make Satan our god (mostly unintentionally) when we reject the one true God.
Many well-known church fathers believed that the record blotted out and nailed to the cross was the record of our sins. Augustine, born in 354 and died in 430, Chrysostom died in 407, Jerome died in 420, and so on. Satan holds the record of our sins and constantly accuses us before God. That was and is nailed to the cross. And it put to shame Satan, not God. Jesus stripped Satan of this power by dying for us on the cross.
Hebrews 9:22 might be interpreted as “Without the shedding of blood (because it cleanses sin), there is no remission or forgiveness (aphesis: cancellation of the punishment) of sins.” This is the cancellation of the penalty of sin. It is forgiveness, not restitution or reparations. It is like a pardon and being treated like an innocent man, even though we are not innocent. The early church believed that God could forgive our sins and cancel them without punishment and reparation if a person was truly repentant. That means the record or document nailed to the cross is the record of our sins—great argument, in my view.
If you reject the PSA idea, that Christ was punished for our sins, does that mean you do not believe in the wrath of God or the punishment of God? Of course not.
The author believes in the PCA theory of the atonement (Penal Cancellation Atonement), not PSA (Penal Substitution Atonement). Why? Because this was the view of the church for the first 1,100 years up to Anslem, according to her. This is the Christis Victor model of the atonement according to J. C. Lamont. What changed?
In the 12th century, Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, lived during the time of Medieval Feudalism. The commoners or vassals owed a Debt to the manor lord that needed to be satisfied. Anslem reasoned that disobedience is sin, and he likened it to an unpaid debt.
- Feudalism: disobedience dishonors the manor lord.
- Anselm: Sin dishonors God.
- Feudalism: the manor lord’s honor demands satisfaction.
- Anselm: God’s justice demands satisfaction.
Anselm’s culture infected his understanding and grid of interpretation of scripture. Sin must be punished, and aphesis (cancellation of punishment) must be rejected because divine justice demands satisfaction. According to Lamont, the Roman Catholic Church didn’t believe Jesus was punished for our sins, but that we are punished for our sins and must make things right. Catholics would punish themselves by fasting, wiping themselves, praying, flagellation, and other such acts. In addition, there is punishment in the next life or purgatory because sins can’t be remitted or aphesis (forgiven without punishment), and divine justice is satisfied. Martin Luther (1483-1546) hated the justice of God because he suffered so much to atone for his sins. Luther agrees with Anslem that divine justice must be satisfied and can’t simply be forgiven. Luther believed that Jesus was punished for our sins, no more self-wiping, starving himself, self-flagellations, etc. But this left the problem of God punishing an innocent person and letting sinners go free. How does that work?
John Owen (1616-1683) tried to fix this problem. He wrote a book titled The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ: Explained, Confirmed, and Vindicated. He did this by saying that, legally, a person can impute their innocence to another and sinners can legally impute their guilt to a righteous person. In all this, God remains just according to Owen. This is the birth of the idea of Double Imputation, according to Lamont. Jesus is legally imputed to be guilty, and we are legally imputed to be innocent by Jesus’s obedience. Because there is no aphesis, there is still a problem. No punishment is cancelled because all sin must be punished in PSA. God punished Jesus instead of us. Therefore, the definition of atonement went from;
1st century = reconciliation
17th century = satisfaction or reparations for wrong or injury, propitiation of an offended party
Anselm changed the idea of what was nailed to the cross, to God’s wrath and justice being satisfied. It was no longer the record of our sins. All sin must be punished, and God can’t cancel or forgive it. Anselm started the PSA theory, but to make it work, the nine passages quoted above must be interpreted in the ahistorical, ungrammatical, metaphysical, metaphorical, and anachronistic hermeneutic. Later in the 16th century, John Calvin (1509-1564) and then in the 17th century, John Owen (1616-1683) would add to the PSA theory.
When we use the evangelical hermeneutic of a literal, historic, grammatical approach, we see that the early church believed in the Penal Cancellation Theory of the Atonement-PCA. That theory is much like Christis Victor’s theory. PSA folks think that PCA folks reject the wrath of God and the punishment of sin by God. Not true.
God’s Wrath. How do we who reject the PSA theory deal with it?
Many scriptures mention God’s wrath. Wrath can mean God’s anger or His punishment of sin according to the Webster Dictionary.
She goes back to Wayne Gruden for the PSA interpretation.
Romans 3:25. Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation (a sin cleansing sacrifice that atones) 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.
Hebrews 2:17. 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 (to be the atoning sacrifice that reconciles by purging) the sins of the people.
1 John 2:2. He (Jesus) is the propitiation (the sin cleansing sacrifice that atones) for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his son to be the propitiation (the sin cleansing sacrifice that atones) for our sins.
Let us now look at how English Bibles in the 1500s translated those verses….before the Calvinistic King James Bible of 1611 (her comment). But the word atonement back then meant reconciliation and not what it means today. See Finney’s definition in the mid 1800s for atonement, which was reconciliation and the satisfaction of public justice, not retributive justice.
Geneva Bible of 1587 “And he is the reconciliation, for our sinnes;
Bishop’s Bible of 1568. “And he is ye attonement for our sinnes;
Coverdale Bible of 1535. “And he it s that optayneth grace for oure synnes;
Tyndale Bible of 1526. And he it is that obteyneth grace for oure synnes;
Is your faith based on an epistemic commitment to the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic and not a systematic theology? If so, you will adopt the PCA and not the PSA view, according to her. PCA advocates have not rejected the authority of the Bible but have dismissed the idea that core Biblical doctrines have and do change over time, as in the PSA theory. If you choose the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic, then you can’t use the other main hermeneutic of a metaphysical, metaphorical, ungrammatical, ahistoric, anachronistic hermeneutic. It is one or the other. Her commitment is to the literal, grammatical, and historical hermeneutic; therefore, her doctrine needed to change, and she rejected PSA and Original Sin. I agree wholeheartedly with her reasoning and her commitment to the truth.
Galatians 1:8. “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be accursed!”
1 Corinthians 15:1-2. “Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken our stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”
Some evangelical Christians told her that she was not saved because she rejected PSA and Original Sin. This is a favorite tactic of the PSA proponents: call those who disagree with you heretics, Pelagians, or tell them they are not real Christians.
Jesus died for our sins. What does that mean?
Did Christ die as a sacrifice for penal substitution or penal cancellation of our sins? God made the Jews His people and redeemed them from the slavery of Egypt. On the night God saved them and judged all the gods of the Egyptians, the Jews were required to kill a lamb and apply the blood to the door jam, top, and sides. Paul tells us that Jesus was that one Passover lamb. ”For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” 1 Corinthians 5:7.
“You were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Revelation 5:9. Jesus died so that Gentiles also can be grafted into the covenant.
“Remember that formerly you who are Gentile by birth and called “uncircumcised”-remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” Ephesians 2:11-13
The blood of Jesus brought Gentiles “at-one-ment” along with believing Jews. Some Jews, the Judaizers, believed that Gentiles must be circumcised and obey the Levitical law. She thinks an honest Christian can believe in either one of these two theories and be saved. I agree. It is much like those who believe in the false doctrine of eternal security, who would never actually live carnally as that doctrine permits. They live above what their doctrine allows.
She quotes Galatians 6:7-8. “Do not be deceived, God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please the flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction. Whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”
Physical death, eternal death, and eternal life
Lamont believes the gospel is the gift of immortality to the saved. Who is your king and LORD? Is it Jesus or is it Satan? The gospel is not which theory of the atonement one believes in, but who the Lord is in your life.
Lamont seems to believe that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis is about the loss of immortality because the tree of life is withheld from humanity. She believes that the death God referred to is physical death, not spiritual or eternal death. One problem that I see with her position. God said that on the day they ate of the forbidden fruit and sinned, they would die. Adam and Eve did not die physically that day, but lived hundreds of years after that. What death did the writer refer to when it was said In the day you eat thereof, you will die? Adam and Eve died eternally/spiritually and were separated and estranged from God on that very day. Just like God proclaimed. The father of the prodigal son declared that his son was dead and lost. The prodigal returned to the father, was made alive again, and was found. When the prodigal left his father to live a sinful life, his father said his son was dead and lost. Is that not eternal death, for it was not physical death?
In Romans 6, it is written that the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life. Many teach that the death referred to is physical. Is that the case? No, it is not. This passage is about eternal life and eternal death, and not physical death. In addition, even sinless and innocent babies die physically, not just actual sinners. All of us die physically. Physical death may well be a consequence of Adam’s original sin on all humanity. But in Genesis and Romans, the death referred to is not and can’t be physical death.
In a different video, J. C. Lamont addresses this question. Does God punish sin?
Some additional questions are also addressed. Is God angry with sinners? Can God’s justice allow Him to forgive sin simply? Does blood satisfy His wrath? If a person denies the doctrine of PSA, does that mean he or she must deny God’s justice and wrath? Does it mean you are not saved?
She believes that in the PCA view of the atonement, and most definitely not the PSA view. In that theory of PCA, the penalty due to our sin is canceled, blotted out, forgiven, and not paid for. Jesus didn’t die to satisfy the justice or wrath of God as in the PSA theory.
The PCA Theory
“Without the shedding of blood (because it cleanses sin), there is no remission/forgiveness (aphesis: cancellation of the punishment) of sins.” Hebrews 9:22b, emphasis added.
The PSA Theory
“Without the shedding of blood (because the wrath of God and justice of God demands that all sin be paid for) there is no remission of sin.” Hebrews 9:22b, emphasis added.
There is a big difference between the two. In the PSA theory, there is no aphesis, where sin is simply cancelled. The document nailed to the cross in Colossians 2:14 is our record of sins, not the satisfaction of the wrath and justice of God whereby all sin is punished. She quotes Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, and Jerome in support of her position that sin was blotted out and nailed to the cross. Aphesis is the word. This was the atonement view for the first 1100 years until Anselm, according to her and some others. PCA goes hand in hand with the Christis Victor view, where Jesus, by His life and death, is victorious over the world, Satan, and sin.
The material above is just a recap of how this view, Christis Victor, was changed by Anselm and then others, such as John Calvin and John Owen, after him. A new document was nailed to the cross instead of our record of sins. PSA declares that sin can’t be cancelled, it must be punished, and that is what Jesus did, so we don’t end up in the lake of fire. She looked at nine versus that can only be made to support PSA by using a hermeneutic that is metaphysical, ungrammatical, ahistoric, and anachronistic. However, using a literal, grammatical, historic hermeneutic with these verses gives us the PCA view and not the PSA view. PCA invites the criticism that only those who deny PSA also deny the wrath and justice of God. What role does God’s wrath play in each view?
What is God’s wrath (orge) using a historical, literal, grammatical hermeneutic?
According to Webster, there are two definitions of wrath.
1) intense vengeful anger or indignation, and,
2) retributory punishment for an offence or a crime: divine chastisement.
Go to the Blue Letter Bible to determine what Strong’s has to say about the word ‘wrath’, and we see the following in Romans 1:28, KJV. It reads like this.
“For (G1063) the wrath (G3709) of God (G2316) is revealed (G601) from (G575) heaven (G3772) against (G1909) all (G3956) ungodliness (G763) and (G532) unrighteousness (G93) of men, (G444) who hold (G2722) the truth (G225) in (G1722) unrighteousness (G93)” Romans 1:28, KJV.
What is G3709 for wrath? It is the Greek word “orge, (or-gay)”. The KJV translates Strong’s G3709 in the following manner: as wrath (31x), as anger (3 times), as vengeance (1 time), and as indignation (1 time). Hence, the outline of Biblical usage is:
- Anger, the natural disposition, temper, character
- Movement or agitation of the soul, impulse, desire, any violent emotion, but especially anger
- Anger, wrath, indignation
- Anger exhibited in punishment, hence used for punishment itself inflicted by magistrates
Strong’s definition for the Greek word, orge or or-gay; from G3713: properly, desire (as reaching forth or excitement of the mind), i. e. (by analogy), violent passion (ire, or (justifiable) abhorrence; by implication punishment: – anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath. Both Strong and Webster tell us that ‘wrath’ can mean punishment itself.
Illegitimate Total Transfer Fallacy
The Illegitimate Total Transfer fallacy of the word, orge, tells us that the same word can’t mean every definition all at once. It can’t be both 1) anger, wrath, indignation, and 2) retributive judgment at the same time. (She will make an exception to this later, watch for it).
Bad exegesis: anger/wrath/indignation and punish/judge
Good exegesis: anger/wrath/indignation or punish/judge
According to her, it means one or the other. Is God angry with us because of our sin, or is the meaning that God is only going to punish/judge sin and us? In some passages, the word orge clearly means anger from the context. For example, Mark 3:5. “He looked around at them in anger (orge) and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand”, He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored.” NIV. Jesus was ticked off and angry.
Another example is Genesis 39:19, “When his master heard the story of his wife told him saying, “This is how your slave treated me”, he burned with anger (orge).” NIV. The Septuagint is the Greek version of the OT. They used the word orge. You will recall that this is the story of Potipher’s wife who accused Joseph of attempted rape.
Another example is 2 Samuel 12:5 NIV, “David burned with anger (orge) against the man and said unto Nathan, “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this must die.” This is the same word orge and it is the emotion of anger.
We now look at a passage where the word orge means judgment, punishment or wrath and is not used to express an emotion. Romans 4:15 “because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.”
Another passage is Romans 13:4, NIV, “Governments secure law and order for the community. When the law is broken, punishment for the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath (orge) to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
Go back to Romans 1:18, “The wrath (orge) of God is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” NIV. We could see how this is anger, but it is also the judgment of God at the same time. The context is not as clear. How do we resolve this? Another rule of interpretation is that when one passage is not clear, we look at other nearby passages that use the same word, and we should use the clearer one to understand both. Therefore, we go to Romans 2:5, which reads, “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath (orge) for yourself on the day of wrath (orge) and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” The word anger doesn’t make much sense, but wrath and judgement do. Verse 6 states that God will render to each man according to his deeds at the judgment. Therefore, Romans 2:5 is clear that the emotion of anger is not meant, but the judgment and wrath of God is the meaning. She then assumes that Romans 1:18 is about judgment and not anger. Maybe this is an example where the one word can mean both definitions at the same time? Did the early church see it differently? Romans 1:18 states that the wrath of God is currently being revealed against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Not hard to imagine that it is both the emotion of anger and judgment at the same time. What do you think?
Origen says that wrath/anger is not an indication of any passion on God’s part. Contra Celsum, Book IV. He understands orge to be God’s judicial judgment on sinners. But in some verses, it clearly means the wrath and anger of God, an emotion. Why do some theologians insist that God is beyond emotions? Because they are committed to Platonic metaphysics and assert that God is absolutely immutable and impassible.
Augustine, in a chapter titled, Of the Anger of God, which does not inflame His mind, nor disturb His unchangeable tranquility, City of God: Book 15. The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin. Augustine also writes, “But the wrath and sore displeasure of the Lord God must not be understood as any mental perturbation; but the might whereby He most justly avenges, by the subjection of all creation to His service.” Moreover, Augustine writes that the anger and jealousy of God are not emotions of God; as some do charge upon the scriptures which they do not understand: but under the name of anger is to be understood the avenging of iniquity.” Again, why is it that some theologians insist that God is above and beyond emotions? Because of their Platonic presuppositions.
I would not depend on either Origen or Augustine for any definitive last word. They seem to go out of their way to say that God doesn’t have emotions, including anger, which is simply not true. “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” Can you imagine any person who is well pleased, not being at the same time emotionally pleased? I think not. (See my article on Theism for a fuller explanation).
Back to the wrath of God
J.C. Lamont uses a Latin song and its lyrics to demonstrate that the Latin ‘Ire’ is used for wrath and judgment and not emotion. The Day of Judgment is God’s anger poured out for sin. It is not the day of anger. What is God’s orge (ar-gay), the day of wrath for sin? She uses one last church father named Lactantius, who states that there is just and unjust anger and God never uses unjust anger, “for He can’t be injured.” In one sense, that is true, but not entirely accurate. God is injured all the time by our rebellion and rejection of Him. He gets over our insults and injuries, but it does affect Him and hurt Him. Anger is a natural response, and we can all relate. Could a God who feels nothing create feeling in His creation and be able to relate to it?
John Owen’s understanding of the 17th century and the anger of God. Orge is anger. R.C. Sproul says Romans 1:18 is not strong enough. Sproul says God is angry with the wicked every day, as the Bible affirms. Sproul says He is furious, which is beyond angry. Coming from a determinist like Sproul, saying God is furious for our wickedness is beyond ridiculous because God decreed our wickedness. Is God furious about His perfect decree? It makes no sense at all. Calvinists live in a world of contradictions and absurdities and are not bothered by it at all. Many religionists are like this. The truth will always make sense when we understand it. It will never require us to pretend to love a God whom we can’t trust and admire.
Let us get back to Sproul. He is using an ahistoric hermeneutic; therefore, it is not exegetical. The early Church always believed this verse was about the judgment of God, rather than God’s anger. John MacArthur says we have broken the law of God, and He is angry about it. (Again, why is God angry about His own decisions? Is this not ridiculous?) In evangelicalism, it is the PSA crowd that usually interprets orge (ar-gay) as anger. No one else does this. It is part of PSA. You don’t appease the judgment of God, but you do appease the emotion of anger in God. That is why the atonement must be directed at the feeling of God’s anger and that His divine justice must be satisfied.
John Stott and most Arminians deny that or-gay (orge) appeases the emotion of anger that God has toward sinners. John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, and most Calvinists believe that ordeals satisfy the demands of divine justice and appease the anger of God. Both definitions of wrath seem to fit, as opposed to one of the two, which she says is the “Illegitimate Totality Transfer” of Propitiation.
Orge means God’s judicial judgment/punishment and is the historical hermeneutic held by the early church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholic, Protestant majority of Arminians, Protestant minority of Calvinists, and other Evangelicals.
Orge means God’s anger/fury is an ahistorical hermeneutic held by a minority of Arminians and a majority of Calvinists
Next two questions are:
- What does not avert God’s orge: judgment/punishment, and
- What does avert God’s orge: judgment/punishment?
Amos 5:12-15, “For I know how many are your offences and how great your sins. There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes and deprive the poor of justice in the courts. Therefore, the prudent keep quiet in such times, for the times are evil. Seek good, not evil, that you may live. Then the LORD God Almighty will be with you, just as you say he is. Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.” What does avert God’s judgment? What does this verse proclaim? Does it say that we must make many more animal sacrifices and spill more blood? Does this verse say that we must pray more? Does it say that we must go to church more, and that we must fast more? It does not. To avert the judgment of God, we must cease from evil and do good. We must protect the innocent. We must do justice and refuse to take bribes.
Verses 21-24 of Amos. “I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” Wow, what a verse. All this evil while they are religious at the same time. His anger is not appeased, and His justice/punishment is not averted by their false worship in song, by their godless religious sacrifices and offerings. Blood does not appease God or prevent judgment. Repentance is the only way to do this. No matter how much blood is spilled, it will not appease God while we remain unrighteous and continue to sin.
Psalm 51:16-17, “You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it, you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise.” NIV. This is David reflecting on his sin of murder and adultery. No sacrificial blood will appease God’s anger or avert His judgment. Blood will not cut it. Only repentance will work with God. Orge is explained.
Isaiah 1: 11-17. “The multitude of your sacrifices-what are they to me? Says the LORD. I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New moons, Sabbaths, and convocations-I can’t bear your worthless assemblies. Your New Moon feasts and our appointed festivals I hate with all my being. They have become a burden to me: I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood.”
How perfectly this word applies to the Christian church in the USA today, generally speaking. Praise God for the few exceptions. Living in sin against God and others will not be appeased by blood sacrifice, like many pagans believe, and vainly offer their idols. That is not the way it works with the one true God. Worthless blood sacrifices or our worldly worship and religious practice do not placate him. Blood does not satisfy the wrath of God or pay a debt. You could offer a near infinite amount of blood, and still it will never appease the wrath of God or satisfy His demands of justice.
Hosea 6:6. “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings”. This means that the acknowledgement of God, His law, and covenant in total must be respected and obeyed. They failed at it all.
All these passages warn the Jews of God’s coming wrath, judgment, and captivity. No amount of vainly offered blood will change this orge of God; only repentance will make a real difference.
2 Chronicles 7:14, “If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” NIV.
Ezekiel 18:21-23, “But if the wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? Declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
Jonah 3:10 is another verse that is applicable. The Ninevites repented and God did not bring on them His wrath and judgment, His orge. Did they try to appease God with sacrifices? No, they repented and that alone averted His judgment and wrath, orge.
Jeremiah 18:7-8. “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed (orge) and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.” NIV. Nothing about blood sacrifice appeases the wrath of God. Repentance will cancel the punishment (orge).
Joel 2:12-13. “Even now, declares the LORD, return to me with all your heart, with fasting and weeping and mourning. Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity.” NIV. He does not instruct them to offer lots of bloody sacrifices to appease His wrath and anger.
There are many more passages that might be used. Blood does not avert judgment only repentance from the heart averts or cancels judgment. Lactantius and early church leaders said, “God is not appeased by incense, victims, or costly offerings. For these things are all corruptible. Rather, he is appeased by a reform of morals. He who ceases to sin renders the anger of God extinguishable.” On the Anger of God Chapter 1. Not blood but repentance does appease God’s wrath.
The PSA theory used the 17th (from 1610 and on) century definition of propitiation, which means reparations or satisfaction for an offense or injury; and the obsolete definition of this word, which was reconciliation of man with God through the life, passion, and death of Christ. The meaning of propitiation changed to the satisfaction of divine justice, not the reconciliation of man to God based on man’s repentance.
1st century definition of propitio/propitiation was favorable, gracious, kind, well-disposed
16th-century definition of propitiation is a sacrifice that obtains favor/grace, satisfying God’s justice
The 17th-century definition of propitiation is a sacrifice that appeases the wrath of God
In the Latin language of the 4th century, propitio meant the reconciliation that results in favor because the person is cleansed from sin, which has been removed by repentance, not blood. 17th-century propitiation definition meant satisfaction that results in favor of divine justice
Many passages of scripture, which include the passages just mentioned, tell us plainly that blood does not avert the anger, wrath (orge), or justice of God. But we have four passages that seem to say to us that the shedding of blood does appease the wrath of God, but this is only true if a person uses an ahistoric interpretation. That is like interpreting the lyrics of Deck the Halls as telling us to deck the halls and decorate our holiday by cross-dressing (gay apparel).
Think back on how the word gay has changed meaning over time.
In 1860, gay meant happy and festive
In 1920, gay meant sexually uninhibited
1950s, gay meant same sex attraction between males
2000s gay means same sex attraction in general
If we want to determine authorial intent, then we must consider the original meaning of the words. Consequently, the word propitiation as used by the Biblical authors could not be interpreted according to a 17th-century definition of the word. That is an anachronistic hermeneutic.
“On this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins.” Leviticus 16:30 NIV.
“In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood (because it cleanses from sin per Leviticus 16:30 and the context of this verse itself), there is no aphesis (Greek word that means the cancellation of the punishment). Hebrews 9:22, NIV, emphasis added.
Atonement does not satisfy divine justice in the punishment of all sin, nor does it appease God’s wrath toward sin. Blood cleanses sin, as in aphesis or cancellation of the sin. This happens only when a person turns from sin to righteousness. Repentance from sin averts God’s orge/judgment because shed blood cleanses sin that is repented of. For those who really repent of their sin, punishment is canceled, aphesis. God doesn’t punish an innocent person on your behalf; the blood of Christ cleanses us from and of our sins. If all sin must be punished, then the text would not use aphesis to describe what happens.
PSA = If you repent, God will have Jesus pay the penalty for your sins.
PCA = If you repent, God will cancel (apheimi) the penalty for your sins.
Romans 2:8-9, NIV, “But to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greeks.” Indignation (G2372) is sometimes translated wrath, NIV. The KJV translates this Greek word (thymos (thoo-mos) from (G2380). It is translated as wrath 15 times, fierceness 2 times, and indignation once. Using the Blue Letter Bible, we get the following. The first meaning of this word is passion, anger, heated anger, forthwith boiling up and soon subsiding again. Second meaning is glow, ardour, the wine of passion, inflaming wine (which either drives the drinker mad or kills him with its strength).
We have two Greek words, thymos and orge, and it can be confusing. “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.” Ephesians 4:31, NIV. Context will always tell which is the proper meaning. When it comes to God, thymos is always indignation, and orge is always punishment according to Lamont.
What is the difference between rage and anger? Orge is explosive rage, and thymos is controlled and just anger. For instance, child sex trafficking is often thymos against injustice. Jesus said If someone hits you on one cheek, give him the other. This is also an injustice, but we are expected to suffer or bear it.
What does it mean when God is angry? Two options are 1) fierceness, or 2) indignation. “The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.” Revelation 14:10, NIV. This verse describes the judgment of God for killing the saints. He is angry and indignant. In this verse, we have wrath (G2372) and a cup of indignation (G3709). The rule is that the clearer verse is to determine the less clear verse. Go to Revelation 16:19, “And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness (Greek word= thymos, G2380) of his wrath.” This is the full expression. It means severity, not emotions. The orge these folks will receive will be severe. It can have either meaning. There is a righteous anger. Can God be angry? Of course.
Here is an acceptable translation of Romans 2:8 that does not violate exegesis. “But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be the fierceness of God’s wrath (i.e., severe punishment). Therefore, it can be both a severe penalty or judgment, and it can be the righteous anger of a holy God. PSA is built on orge, fierce anger of God. For example, a woman finds out her husband is cheating on her. She is orge and has a righteous anger and in her rage, she immediately stabs the two of them. If she calculates the eventual murder of her husband and the other woman, that is thymos. Let us remember that vengeance is the Lord’s, not ours.
Revelation 16:19, and we look at ancient English translations, we have fierceness of his wrath in the Geneva Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, and the Coverdale Bible. It can mean the severity of His judgment and be righteously angry at the same time, or it might not be, according to Lamont.
In PSA, it is God’s orgie that must be appeased and satisfied. Blood averts. It is not His thymos. PSA is not saying God’s thymos is satisfied, and that is always judgment. Blood again doesn’t appease thymos.
“This is because all verses with thymos (except Romans 2:8) are in regard to God’s indignation against the antichrist’s kingdom/Babylon. The PSA case that God’s wrath must be satisfied, ie; that all sin must be punished, is built on the idea that Jesus had to be punished for the repentant sin of believers in order to satisfy God’s orge (wrath) and avert His orge/punishment.”
C Michael Patton, a Calvinist, wrote an article that she thought was well done. He also wrote a book on exegetical fallacies and how to avoid them. One such fallacy is the Exclusionary Fallacy, which is “ignoring parts of the text that don’t fit one’s theological framework”—for instance, selectively omitting verses or passages that challenge one’s doctrinal stance. This fallacy can lead to a skewed understanding of the text. For example, focusing only on passages that emphasize God’s love, while ignoring those that speak of His justice and holiness, can lead to an imbalanced theology.”
This is so prevalent today with the unbalanced emphasis on God’s love and the grace of God. These folks believe that repentance from sin is actually unnecessary for salvation. They see salvation as being from God alone, a concept known as monergism. They think repentance from sin is a work and a false condition to salvation. They only consider those select passages that talk about believing in the LORD Jesus Christ to be saved. The author’s example is when teachers and pastors focus only on the love of God, ignoring the conditional nature of His love and committing this Exclusionary Fallacy. Amen.
If you focus on all the verses that talk about God’s ‘orge’ and ignore the verses that talk about ‘aphesis’, this is that fallacy. Both groups of people are committing the same fallacy, the Exclusionary Fallacy.
One group believes .Another group believes
No sin is punished All sin is punished (even if repented of)
Ignores/redefines ‘orge’ Ignores/redefines ‘aphesis’
Both groups are guilty of this fallacy. One group makes kateliga mean the satisfaction of justice rather than restoration to favor.
“Without the shedding of blood (because it satisfies the demands of divine justice that all sin must be punished), there is no cancellation of the punishment or restoration of favor.” Hebrews 9:22b, emphasis added.
Using a literal, historic, grammatical hermeneutic states that this verse is the cancellation of the punishment to restore to favor, not that the shedding of blood meets the demands of divine justice. The PSA’s overemphasis on the wrath of God and that all sin must be punished by the sinner or by Jesus makes it impossible for this to happen: “Without the shedding of blood there is no aphesis (cancellation of sin).
PSA: If you repent, God will have Jesus pay the penalty for your sins.
PCA: If you repent, God will cancel (apheimi) the penalty for your sins.
Christian people do this frequently. They overemphasize specific passages and ignore those that refute their theological bias. Another example is with the doctrine of eternal security. Advocates ignore or redefine those passages that contradict once saved always saved. The same goes for the false Doctrine of Original Sin.
The balanced pendulum, or the pendulum in equilibrium, is when God punishes the unrepentant sinner, but God cancels the punishment for the repentant person. This idea uses the literal, historic, and grammatical hermeneutic, which reconciles all passages, not just a few. When only the wrath of God, who punishes all sin, even of the repentant person, the pendulum swings out of the center position. The opposite swing is to the other side, where Christians say that God is love and no sin at all is punished.
Both the group that believes all sins must be punished (PSA) and the group that does not believe sin should be punished are committing the Exclusionary Fallacy. The answer is returning to equilibrium, which the church of Jesus Christ embraced from Jesus up to the 16th century. This is the faith that we must fight for. PSA advocates often claim that anyone who doesn’t embrace their false hermeneutic (ungrammatical, ahistoric, metaphorical, metaphysical, anachronistic) is not saved and can’t be saved unless they believe their interpretation of the gospel, which is that all sin must be punished.
You do not have to believe in PSA to be saved. You do not have to accept double imputation to be saved. You do not have to believe in Original Sin to be saved. Actually believing in these false doctrines makes it much more difficult for you to be saved. Equilibrium flows out of the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic, and this gives the equilibrium validity and credibility. PSA is not because they believe that an anachronistic definition of propitiation in the 17th century redefines atonement. The burden of proof is on them, not us. How could the apostle Paul mean 17th 17th-century definition of atonement when he wrote in the first century? Ridiculous.
Who gave Anslem, in the 12th Century, the authority to redefine things based on his cultural experience of feudalism? They need to make the case and prove that the church of Christ had it wrong for 1100 years.
Where is your epistemic commitment? Is it the rule of interpretation and exegesis or your doctrines? If it is doctrine, then all fallacies are acceptable and need to be justified and explained. Critically important. Why is it exegetical to use fallacies? If Biblical interpretation is subject to my preferred doctrines, then my faith can’t handle examination. I have violated the literal, historic, grammatical hermeneutic, so my doctrines should be changed, not my hermeneutic. An examined faith is a healthy faith. Your faith might be based on nothing more than that is what you were taught as a Christian. That is an unexamined faith.
Books she recommends or just makes reference to?
Evangelical Books that teach hermeneutics (proper interpretation), ie, they teach the exegetical rules we are supposed to use when interpreting the Scriptures. The problem is that no one is taught to apply the regulations to Evangelical Doctrines!
Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson
How to Read the Bible for all it is Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart
Grasping God’s Word by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays
Systematic Theology, Second Edition, by Wayne Grudem
Most of these evangelicals violate the rules in order to maintain their beloved doctrines. Wayne Grudem is a perfect example.
If someone asks you if you have a problem with God’s wrath, you can say I do believe God punishes sin. PSA folks think you deny that God punishes sin, but you do not deny that.
You deny that God punishes repentant sin only. Amen and Amen.
God cancels the punishment for our sins when we repent of those sins.
God cancels the punishment for our sins when we cancel the punishment for those who have sinned against us. It can’t possibly mean that God punishes us for our sin so that He can forgive us, and we are to punish those who sin against us so that we can forgive them. Makes no sense at all.
She did a very good job explaining her position against the PSA theory of the atonement. I recommend her books and videos. She deserves a lot of credit for her work. I have tried to accurately reflect her views of the Penal Cancellation Theory of the Atonement.
