Foreigner famously sang “I want to know what love is.” There are different ways to address such a foundational question from Scripture, and I just noticed another one of them this morning.
“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:9–10).
Note the parallel structure:
“This is love . . . God sent . . . that we might live.”
“This is love . . . God sent . . . propitiation for our sins.”
God did not send His Son simply to hang out with us. This is love, that our sins have had the fullness of God’s wrath poured out upon them in the cross of Jesus Christ. The ultimate love, the love that we must learn to imitate, is the love that insisted upon propitiation.
Love without propitiation is simply sentimentalism.
Unless U2 was doing a cover, I believe it was Foreigner who should get the “credit” for the song.
Hate to be a nitpick, but it was actually Foreigner who sang ‘I want to know what love is’.
Are Socinian questions allowed? If so, could someone help me understand the necessity of propitiation again? What is wrong with a love that is satisfied with repentance and does not require a wrath-quenching sacrifice?
Oh, can’t you see what love has done?
Oh, can’t you see what love has done?
Oh, can’t you see what love has done?
Would this be the same as “Love without sacrifice is sentimentalism”?
This is good!
Pete and AeroBob, oops. I will go fix it now. I only did that because quoting U2 is hipper than quoting Foreigner. Or Journey. Quoting Journey would be the worst.
Matt R: You asked, “What is wrong with a love that is satisfied with repentance and does not require a wrath-quenching sacrifice?” The question you need to ask at the same time is, can God’s perfect holiness and justice be satisfied with only repentance if there is no objective dealing with the fact of sin? “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins” (Hebrews 9:22b). Also, “But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:26b). But for a fuller… Read more »
Doug, you could quote this lyric of U2 and return to your full hip-quotient:
“You broke the bonds
And you loosed the chains
Carried the cross of my shame
Oh my shame, you know I believe it.”
@matt R – Repentance is great, but there is still the bloody knife in your hand and the dead man on the floor that need to be dealt with.
Dan Glover: You say, The question you need to ask at the same time is, can God’s perfect holiness and justice be satisfied with only repentance if there is no objective dealing with the fact of sin? I understand using punishment as a deterrent or corrective measure, but I cannot comprehend any “objective” necessity beyond these instrumental purposes. (Although I once thought I did.) When I imagine a scenario in which neither of these purposes is applicable, I can see no reason to “punish” anyone except the desire for revenge. When a man forgives another man when he repents, requiring… Read more »
Matt R, I’m not making this stuff up. God told Adam and Eve that in the day they ate of the fruit, they would surely die. They ate, and death entered creation – “the wages of sin is death”. I would point you again to the Scripture passages in my previous answer. Someone could lay out the whole theology of the atonement but sooner or later it all boils down to reading very plain passages in Scripture such as “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sins”, and choosing to agree with God’s own word on the… Read more »
Journey: “I hear, but I never listen,
I see, and still I’m blind,
All alone, lost in the silence, I’m dyin’.”
Foreigner: “I want to know what love is.”
U2: “The rule has been disproved,
The stone it has been moved
The grave is now a groove,
All debts are removed,
Oh, can’t you see what love has done?
Oh, can’t you see what love has done?
Oh, can’t you see what love has done?”
Dan Glover: I don’t deny that the Bible occasionally seems to assume the absolute necessity of punishment/propitiation, but I’m wondering if there is any way to make sense of this supposed necessity. Is it simply a mystery that must be accepted despite our inability to comprehend it or is it something we can understand?
MattR, you ask if men can forgive without propitiation so why cannot God? But what if our forgiveness is predicated on God’s propitiation? We forgive so no longer hold an offiense because we hand over the offense against us to God, but God needs to deal with the offense against him. Perhaps we can forgive others and that forgiveness mean something because of God’s propitiation?
Bethyada, it is not (subjectively) necessary to believe that God has been propitiated to forgive someone who wrongs you. In other words, people can (and do!) forgive those who wrong them without thinking “I can forgive them because God has punished (or will punish) their sins.” Perhaps it is sinful to forgive in such a manner and perhaps a perfectly holy individual would have to regard sins as punished by God in order to forgive them, but as I mentioned above, this seems backwards to me. It certainly does not seem like a definitive feature of “the ultimate love” as… Read more »
Hi MattR, I don’t mean people can’t think they forgive without propitiation, I mean forgiveness may not happen without it. What if I wish to forgive and Jesus says that justice prohibits his transgression from having no consequence. You may choose to forsake ill feeling and retribution and restitution, but justice demands that this be dealt with.
We become increasingly like Christ. How can we do so unless our guilt (sin, not just feelings of badness) are dealt with?
Just pondering here.
Matt R,
I think it is a mystery and I don’t pretend to understand it (and I’ve been a believer a long time). I think C.S. Lewis compared it to electricity or something like that in Mere Christianity when he listed a couple theories on atonement but concluded by saying something like “I don’t know how it works, but that’s not going to keep me from using it.”
Bethyada, I do not understand the difference between thinking you forgive someone and them actually being forgiven. This distinction implies that forgiveness is somehow an objective reality independent of the forgiver’s mind, but I do not understand how this could possibly be the case. Of course, someone may think they are “over” something and later realize they are not, or you may forgive someone while someone else does not, but I have no idea what it would mean to say that you think you forgive someone but they are not actually forgiven by you. The concepts of an objective “guilt”… Read more »
Steven, if the absolute necessity of punishment is accepted as a mystery, fair enough, but I am wanting to know if anyone can explain why it is necessary when it seems so plainly unnecessary. I do not understand how electricity works, but I understand what it does, what it’s for. Punishment is just the opposite. I think I understand how it is supposed to work, but I do not understand what it is supposed to accomplish. (Beyond deterrence, correction, or revenge.)
From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. Gen 9If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death. And you shall accept no ransom for him who… Read more »
Matt R,
“I think I understand how it is supposed to work, but I do not understand what it is supposed to accomplish. (Beyond deterrence, correction, or revenge.)”
Those three seem like pretty good accomplishments, just ask any parent who just had to spank their child :) (though I’d replace revenge with avenge, which also means redeem). What else are you looking for?
Steven, I am open to the possibility of using “punishment”, or rather discipline, for deterrent or corrective purposes. Neither of these, however, shows the absolute necessity of punishment, since it is easy to imagine cases in which the wrongdoer does not need to be corrected or deterred, i.e., when he has sincerely repented. In such a case, the only reason I can imagine for punishment is the desire for revenge. (I do not mean to question the punisher’s motives. The punisher may sincerely believe that punishment is necessary to satisfy justice or something like that and that he is simply… Read more »
Bethyada, I believe you are correct that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains a notion of something like “objective sin.” In addition to the passages you cite, this seems to be implied by the possibility of “unintentional sin” or being “defiled” by contact with certain things – bodily fluids, dead animals, etc. I suppose my difficulty imagining what this could possibly mean is the result of living in a “disenchanted” world. But lest the idea of distancing oneself from the worldview of the OT seem too shocking, I would remind you that it was Jesus who said, (in contrast… Read more »
Attributing a Foreigner song to U2 . . . yikes!!! As a big fan of both U2 and your work, this is the first time I’ve ever been disappointed by your writing, Pastor . . . :)
But there are penance options available. Give a listen to the Joshua Tree and all will be forgiven! ;)
“21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine… Read more »
Matt R, As I said, it’s a mystery to me, but here’s some suggestions. Punishment is not always necessary. But sometimes it is. Sometimes its the only way to break through, to kill whatever demons are at work. Lots of people who don’t like the idea of propitiation focus on the Christus Victor theory of atonement, which says that it wasn’t so much that blood pays for sin, but that the crucifixion disempowered the devil and demons. But these are two sides of the same coin. Without Christ, when you sin you are basically opening yourself up to demons. In… Read more »
but I’m wondering if there is any way to make sense of this supposed necessity.
Hmmmm, that’s a tough one..
Here is a go.
The Church is the Bride of Christ.
To be wed is to become one.
God cannot become one with Sin–it is an impossibility.
But, God so loved the world….
The solution is to kill the Sin–make it no more.
Since God is a just God, a price must be paid–that price is death (to Sin?) .
God paid that price for us.
That’s just me brainstorming it.
On a more practical note, what exactly does it mean for us to “insist on propitiation”? Perhaps someone could provide an example of what this would look like in practice. (Not punishing children, which, as Doug himself teaches, is to be perfectly calm and is not done to propitiate the parent, but to discipline the child.) Also, how do you reconcile this with Biblical stories (e.g., the prodigal son) and exhortations (“seventy times seven”, “forgiving one another…”) which do not seem to involve propitiation. Not to mention extra-biblical examples, both real and fictional, of forgiveness without propitiation. I suppose Javert… Read more »