Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history?

Here are a representative few:

The Greek terms (the verb hilaskomai, “to make propitiation” and the noun hilasmos, “a sacrifice of propitiation”) used in these passages have the sense of “a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God — and thereby makes God propitious (or favorable) toward us.” This is the consistent meaning of these words outside the Bible where they were well understood in reference to pagan Greek religions. These verses simply mean that Jesus bore the wrath of God against sin.

Wayne A.; Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Making Sense of Series) (p. 575). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.​

The following portion is from the notes of the ESV Study Bible. Normally I wouldn't quote a simple study Bible, but these notes were written by Dr. Tom Schreiner who is one of the foremost New Testament scholars in the world. His epic commentary on Romans goes into greater detail, but this sample from the ESV Study Bible is a worthy condensing of his larger work.

Rom. 3:25 Jesus’ blood “propitiated” or satisfied God’s wrath (1:18), so that his holiness was not compromised in forgiving sinners. Some scholars have argued that the word propitiation should be translated expiation(the wiping away of sin), but the word cannot be restricted to the wiping away of sins as it also refers to the satisfaction or appeasement of God’s wrath, turning it to favor (cf. note on John 18:11). God’s righteous anger needed to be appeased before sin could be forgiven, and God in his love sent his Son (who offered himself willingly) to satisfy God’s holy anger against sin. In this way God demonstrated his righteousness, which here refers particularly to his holiness and justice. God’s justice was called into question because in his patience he had overlooked former sins. In other words, how could God as the utterly Holy One tolerate human sin without inflicting full punishment on human beings immediately? Paul’s answer is that God looked forward to the cross of Christ where the full payment for the guilt of sin would be made, where Christ would die in the place of sinners. In the OT, propitiation (or the complete satisfaction of the wrath of God) is symbolically foreshadowed in several incidents: e.g., Ex. 32:11–14; Num. 25:8, 11; Josh. 7:25–26.​

Notice, also, Jesus' own words in John 18:

So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:11 ESV)
​

The imagery is unmistakable--it is a cup of wrath. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and, later, Revelation all have this imagery. Jesus Himself attests that what His is going to do on the cross is precisely to bear the Father's wrath. Paul's use of "Propitiation" in Romans and John's use of it in his epistles are in perfect harmony with Jesus' own thoughts.

The Archangel

 

I have never heard a satisfactory response to Jesus cry from the cross - My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? - to explain that He was not forsaken in the wrath of the Father.

Sometimes several sentences even paragraphs to explain it away.

It comes down to this question - Did Jesus lie? Whether His own words or mouthing the words of the Psalmist, did Jesus Lie?

 

Seriously?! It most certainly does. How many more resources must I post? I'm afraid if I posted my entire library (which is, extraordinarily extensive) you still wouldn't see it.

(ETA: What the word means and how it is used both define meaning, not necessarily one--meaning or usage. The New Testament usage is clearly in the camp of bearing God's wrath. Now, you, like others, can deny certain things, but it is hard to deny the meaning and usage of the word.)

Denying original sin is one thing, but to, essentially, deny the heart of the atonement itself... I'm just shaking my head here.

ETA: A further Grudem quote:

Romans 3: 5 tells us that God put forward Christ as a “propitiation” (NASB) 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.”

Grudem, Wayne A.; Grudem, Wayne A.. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Making Sense of Series) (p. 575). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
​

The Archangel

 

Jesus told the truth - that's why He doubled down on what He said by quoting scripture.

It's a difficult concept because the propitiation for the wrath of God towards sin is difficult for us to embrace.

 

I guess we have to choose (as usual).

 

yes, a million years from now (or however we will measure "time") we will laugh at our misunderstandings of the word and each other.

 

Because the first rule of context is always that usage determines meaning. In other words, a lexical definition is helpful, but it is not the final word on meaning. How the author uses a word matters as much (or more) in determining the meaning of the word.

The Archangel

 

Jesus was not afraid of pain or death. Many martyrs have bravely gone to painful deaths without a whimper. What He was tormented over was the Father's turning His face from Him. This was a the pain of an infinite relation being broken. Think marital divorce times infinity. That was the agony of the cross. It was not the nails.

 

What?! Hank isn't a Liberal Democrat???

 

Thank you for that, I'll do the same for you if vice versa

 

I used to be a Yellow Dog Democrat

 

Which color are you now?