(Not just) semantics

Rob Wilkerson comments on Mark Driscoll's article on propitiation, and remarks on the use of the word 'avert'.

Now, this may seem like tired semantics, and i know i am perhaps guilty of banging on about propitiation...actually, forget that. I think propitiation is great, the Father's anger at my sin has been propitiated by Jesus on the cross, surely thats worth talking and getting excited about!

Anyway, i digress. Why is the use of the word averted worth getting so excited about? Because i don't believe our sin was averted by Jesus on the cross, i believe it was dealt with, removed...propitiated. Avert suggests that the Cross put God's wrath somewhere else, that it was displaced rather than removed, that in some sense, maybe it is still there. Avert suggests that the cross was like a shield rather than a sponge.

On the cross Jesus took all the wrath God has towards our sins. He removed it by soaking it up, not by having it bounce off Him, not by shovelling it off somewhere, but by dying under its weight. By being on the receiving end of every last ounce of it, so that we may enter into a relationship with the Father.

And i think thats pretty important to remember.