Editing Propitiation (section)

=== Reformation theology ===
The case for translating ''hilasterion'' as "expiation" instead of "propitiation" was put forward by British scholar [[C. H. Dodd]] in 1935 and at first gained wide support. Scottish scholars Francis Davidson and G.T. Thompson, writing in ''The New Bible Commentary'', first published in 1953, state that "The idea is not that of conciliation of an angry God by sinful humanity, but of expiation of sin by a merciful God through the atoning death of His Son. It does not necessarily exclude, however, the reality of righteous wrath because of sin."<ref>Davidson, F. and G. T. Thompson (1953,1954). "Romans", ''The New Bible Commentary''. Eerdmans (Second ed. 1954) p. 946. In the 3rd ed. 1970, this statement is found on p. 1022.</ref> The Anglican theologian and biblical scholar [[Austin Farrer]], writing a quarter century after Dodd, argued that Paul's words in Romans 3 should be translated in terms of expiation rather than propitiation: "God himself, says St Paul, so far from being wrathful against us, or from needing to be propitiated, loved us enough to set forth Christ as an expiation of our sins through his blood."<ref>Farrer, Austin (1960). ''Said or Sung: An Arrangement of Homily and Verse''. London: Faith Press, p. 69</ref>

''Hilasterion'' is translated as "expiation" in the [[Revised Standard Version]] and the [[New American Bible]] (Revised Edition), and as "the means of expiating sin" in the [[New English Bible]] and the [[Revised English Bible]]. The [[New Revised Standard Version]] and the [[New International Version]] translate this as "sacrifice of atonement".

Dodd argued that in pagan Greek the translation of ''hilasterion'' was indeed to propitiate, but that in the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew OT) that ''kapporeth'' (Hebrew for "covering")<ref>Easton's Bible Dictionary, p. 965</ref> is often translated with words that mean "to cleanse or remove".<ref>Dodd, C. H. (1935). ''The Bible and the Greeks'', p. 93</ref> This view was initially challenged by [[Roger Nicole]] in twenty-one arguments.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nicole |first1=Roger |title=C. H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation |journal=Westminster Theological Journal |date=May 1955 |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=117–57}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nicole |first1=Roger |date=1977 |title='''Hilaskesthai''' Revisited |url=https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1977-3_173.pdf |url-status=live |journal=The Evangelical Quarterly |volume=49 |issue=3 |pages=173–177 |doi=10.1163/27725472-04903005 |s2cid=251874988 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1977-3_173.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09}}</ref> Later it was also challenged by [[Leon Morris]] who argued that because of the focus in the book of Romans on God's wrath, that the concept of ''hilasterion'' needed to include the appeasement of God's wrath.<ref>Morris, Leon (1955). ''The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross''. London: Tyndale Press; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 3rd ed., 1965. p. 155</ref> Writing in the ''New Bible Dictionary'', Morris states that "Propitiation is a reminder that God is implacably opposed to everything that is evil, that his opposition may properly be described as 'wrath', and that this wrath is put away only by the atoning work of Christ."<ref>Morris, Leon (1982). "Propitiation", in ''New Bible Dictionary'' 2nd ed. InterVarsity Press p. 987.</ref>

Presbyterian scholar Henry S. Gehman of [[Princeton Theological Seminary]] in his ''New Westminster Bible Dictionary'' (1970) argued that for ''hilasterion'' in Romans 3:25 and ''hilasmos'' in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10, "In these cases RSV more properly has 'expiation,' which means the extinguishing of guilt by suffering a penalty or offering a sacrifice as an equivalent. ... It is God who sent forth his Son to be the expiation of sin. Through the death of Christ sins are expiated or annulled, and fellowship is restored."<ref>Gehman, Henry Snyder (1970). "Propitiation", in ''The New Westminster Bible Dictionary''. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. p. 770.</ref>

Likewise, the Anglican theologian and biblical scholar [[Reginald H. Fuller]], writing in ''The Oxford Companion to the Bible'', has noted that while the precise meaning of ''hilasterion'' is disputed, and while some translate it as "propitiation", this, he says, "suggests appeasing or placating an angry deity-- a notion hardly compatible with biblical thought and rarely occurring in that sense in the Hebrew Bible. It requires God as its object, whereas in this hymn [Romans 3:24-25] God is the subject: 'whom God put forward.' ... Accordingly, the rendering 'expiation' is the most probable."<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last= Fuller|first= Reginald H.|author-link= Reginald H. Fuller|editor1-last= Metzger|editor1-first= Bruce M.|editor1-link= Bruce M. Metzger|editor2-last= Coogan|editor2-first= Michael D.|editor2-link= Michael D. Coogan|encyclopedia= The Oxford Companion to the Bible|title= Jesus Christ|language= |edition= |year= 1993|publisher= Oxford University Press|location= New York; Oxford|id= |isbn= 9780195046458|issn= |oclc= |pages= 363–364}}</ref>

In his semantic study of ''hilasterion'' David Hill, of the [[University of Sheffield]], claims that Dodd leaves out several Septuagint references to propitiation, and cites apocryphal sources.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hill |first1=David |title=Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms |date=1967 |publisher=CUP Archive |pages=23–37 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6JJOAAAAIAAJ&q=dodd&pg=PA23 |access-date=12 April 2019|isbn=9781001512488 }}</ref>

Many Reformed theologians stress the idea of propitiation because it specifically addresses dealing with God's wrath, and consider it to be a necessary element for understanding how the [[atonement]] as [[penal substitution]] makes possible Christ's propitiation for sins by dying in the place of sinners.<ref>Kapic, Kelly M. and Wesley Vander Lugt (2013). ''Pocket Dictionary of the Reformed Tradition''. IVP Academic, p. 91 {{ISBN|9780830827084}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor1-last= Sproul|editor1-first= R. C.|editor-link1= R. C. Sproul|editor2-last= Mathison|editor2-first= Keith|editor-link2= Keith Mathison|date= 2005|title= The Reformation Study Bible (ESV)|url= |location= Orlando, Fla.|publisher= Ligonier Ministries|page= 1617|quote= In Christ's death, God reconciled us to himself, overcoming His own hostility that our sins provoked. The Cross propitiated God. That is to say, it quenched His wrath against us by expiating our sins, and so removing them from His sight.|isbn=9781596381360}}</ref> Critics of penal substitutionary atonement state that seeing the Atonement as appeasing God is a "pagan" idea that makes God seem tyrannical.<ref>See for example, ''Stricken by God?'', ed. Brad Jersak, Eerdmans: 2007 or ''Be Ye Reconciled to God'' by Paul Peter Waldenstrom.</ref>

[[J. I. Packer]] in ''[[Knowing God]]'', first published in 1973, designates a distinct difference between pagan and Christian propitiation: "In paganism, man propitiates his gods, and religion becomes a form of commercialism and, indeed, of bribery. In Christianity, however, God propitiates his wrath by his own action. He set forth Jesus Christ, says Paul, to be the propitiation of our sins."<ref>Packer, J. I. (1993) [1973]. ''Knowing God'', 20th  anniversary ed., InterVarsity Press, p. 185</ref>

[[John Stott]] writes that propitiation "does not make God gracious...God does not love us because Christ died for us, Christ died for us because God loves us".<ref>Stott, John (1986). ''The Cross of Christ'' InterVarsity Press, p. 174</ref> John Calvin, quoting Augustine from ''John's Gospel'' cx.6, writes, "Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us".<ref name="ReferenceA">John Calvin, ''Institutes'', Book 2:16:4</ref> Continuing the quote: "... but that we were reconciled to him already, loving, though at enmity with us because of sin. To the truth of both propositions we have the attestation of the Apostle, 'God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,' (Rom. 5: 8.) Therefore, he had this love towards us even when, exercising enmity towards him, we were the workers of iniquity. Accordingly, in a manner wondrous and divine, he loved even when he hated us."<ref name="ReferenceA" />

Packer also cites God's love as the impetus that provides Christ's sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankind and hence the removal of God's wrath.<ref>J.I. Packer, Knowing God, p. 208; John Murrey, The Atonement, p. 15</ref> According to Packer, propitiation (and the wrath of God that propitiation implies) is necessary to properly define God's love; God could not be righteous and "His love would degenerate into sentimentality (without Christ's death containing aspects of propitiation).The wrath of God is as personal, and as potent, as his Love."<ref>J.I. Packer, Knowing God, p. 206</ref>

Thus the definition of Christian propitiation asserted by Calvin, Packer and Murray holds that within God there is a dichotomy of love and anger, but through propitiation love trumps anger, abolishing it. "'The doctrine of the propitiation is precisely this that God loved the objects of His wrath so much that He gave His own Son to the end that He by His blood should make provision for the removal of this wrath... ([[John Murray (theologian)|John Murray]], ''The Atonement'', p. 15)'"<ref>Packer, J. I. ''Knowing God'', p. 185 (Packer here quoting John Murray)</ref>