While this particular topic is much larger than can be expressed in a blog post, I want to try and focus in on the word “propitiation” and why it should be used in various places rather than some of the alternatives that exist. The topic of the atonement is much larger and many books are written on the subject. I do not intend at this point to summarize all of the possible views of the atonement, but rather I will declare the Reformation position of penal-substitution as the reference point for my discussion.
To begin, it is helpful to understand the penal-substitution theory of the atonement. The issue here is exactly what did Christ accomplish on the Cross. This question is the foundation of the Christian faith. Surprisingly, there may be a dozen widely disseminated views on this event. The Reformation view has two key elements in it that combine two of the better views into one. The point is that Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is a precious commodity for the Godhead to sacrifice willy-nilly; therefore, the reason has to be great to justify the event. Otherwise, God comes off as a cruel tyrant rather than a just sovereign.
The first element of penal-substitution is the idea of satisfaction. The sin of man made such a grievous insult of God, that God’s honor must be satisfied. This is a concept far greater than mere atonement, or covering up. In his death, Jesus dies in the place of man suffering the just punishment for the sins of the world. This is the substitution portion of the equation. There must be a penal, or punishment, aspect of the deal, and Jesus substitutes for the elect in this transaction with God. The legal or accounting transaction that is proposed here is difficult for many to accept. But to the reformers, it is the only reason sufficient to justify us to God, offering a satisfactory sacrifice for our sin.
The second element is the idea of propitiation. Jesus, by his death, because of the highest quality of His sacrifice, not only atones for our sins, but he reconciles us to God. He repairs the damaged relationship between God and sinners. This reconciliation is a vital component of the Atonement in the eyes of the reformers. In some translations, the word expiation appears. The concept of expiation is the washing away of sin, the cleansing of sin. The problem is that expiation is an action done on sin, while propitiation is an action done on the sinner. Propitiation includes the reconciliation component of the atonement that is lacking in the idea of expiation.
The Greek word translated to propitiation is hilasterion. In this form and conjugation, it appears in four places in the Bible. Variations on the root appear in about a dozen other places, particularly in the Old Testament. Given the different moments in redemptive history between OT and NT, we must be careful in interpreting the OT uses of the word in light of our knowledge of the Gospel. Remember that the OT writers did not have the benefit of knowing the end of the story. Therefore, their usage of some of the words may not covey the same richness of texture in the OT that can and should be applied to the NT usages.
Paul is the first to use the word in the New Testament in Romans 3:25. Remember that Paul has just finished, in the first 2 ½ chapters, leveling all of mankind, hammering home the doctrine of original sin as described by Isaiah and Jeremiah. Next, from the latter half of chapter 3 through chapter 5, Paul outlined the formula for salvation, defining justification and sanctification. The key passage in question is Paul’s summary of the purpose of Christ’s work on the cross. All of the key elements are present in this passage. Justification is introduced as a result of the Grace of Jesus Christ, the redeemer. Redemption connotes salvation. God puts forth Jesus as a propitiation by His blood to be received by faith. Clearly, we can see the penal portion of this equation given the reference to blood. Justice can only be satisfied by an appropriate punishment, which is provided for us in Christ, and is received by us through faith. Chapter 4 develops the Abrahamic Covenant, recalling the promise to Abraham through his seed. By invoking this covenant language, Paul gives us the reconciliatory component, declaring us just inheritors of the promise. Both of these concepts are tied back into the word propitiation that is the key word in this section of the Epistle.
The writer of Hebrews uses the word in a similar fashion. Hebrews 2:17 comes in a passage that first of all is about the Holy Priesthood of Christ, specifically making reference to the sacrifice that He makes both as priest and as sacrifice and in actuality, to Himself, being all parts of the drama for us. But the whole passage is a discussion of Salvation, which again includes the element of reconciliation to God. Therefore, once again, both of the key components of propitiation are central to the passage.
John uses the word twice in his first epistle, in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10. It is not my purpose at this time to discuss the components of Sanctification in terms of Wesleyan or Roman Catholic arguments on this passage, but rather to focus on the use of propitiation by John. The key to the way John uses the word is found in the section preceding chapter 2. We get two ideas there: the expiation of our sin and the forgiveness of our sins from Christ. He combines these two ideas in the word propitiation in the next section and goes on to make the statement not only personal, but general. The implications of this statement towards election I’ll cover in a subsequent post. In chapter 4, John refers to propitiation, but here he does not further develop the concept, but rather he uses it as a fully understood concept in the development of his argument concerning God’s love.
What is interesting at this point is to notice where various translations have removed the word propitiation, substituting it most commonly with atonement or less commonly with expiation. The Amplified Bible goes the extra mile in Romans to include the Mercy-Seat along with propitiation, presumably making sure that all the bases are covered. The NIV goes with sacrifice of atonement, stripping much of the texture and depth from the passage. The KJV, as always, sounds rather stilted, but does use the word propitiation in the same context as the newer English Standard Version. The importance of the much maligned King James Version in this debate is its historical proximity to the Reformation. The KJV was written in the early 17th century, within 100 years of Luther and Calvin and within 50 years of the Council of Trent. It was among the first few Bibles commissioned in English, well within this 100 year period. The Geneva Bible, the direct antecedent to the KJV, uses the words reconciliation through faith in His blood in this verse, emphasizing the portion actually omitted in so many of the other versions.
The omission of the word propitiation from recent English versions of the Bible and from the newer rites of the Episcopal BCP demonstrates an insidious shift in theology away from Reformed thinking. The elimination of the component of reconciliation, the component explicitly included in the Geneva Bible, demonstrates the theological pressures on translation that will shape religious thought in the near future. The release of the ESV in 2001 has been heralded as an important development in reformed circles, and in most passages, it seems to be a worthy successor to the KJV. In terms of the doctrine of propitiation, the inclusion of the word propitiation is more consistent with the usage of the Greek word hilasterion as well as the context of the passages.
--Troll--
No comments:
Post a Comment