Replies

Why, God smote Christ with His wrath, of course. Why? Likely he was angry with Himself.

Actually He was vindicating His righteousness for His long suffering with the sin of man,
{Romans3:23 for fall have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 gand are justified hby his grace as a gift, ithrough the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God jput forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in mhis divine forbearance he had passed over nformer sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.]
and He was pouring out on Christ the wrath at the sin of man, putting on Christ the punishment we all deserve

1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.

The Greek word for propitiation is “hilasmos” and means to appease the wrath of an offended party or to satisfy the just demands of someone that has been offended. The Greeks used the word for appeasing their pagan gods. The Greeks had to do this by some righteous act, which would demonstrate their true good character.

You do see where this leads by now, yes?

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” Romans 1:18

The Greek word for propitiation is “hilasmos” and means to appease the wrath of an offended party or to satisfy the just demands of someone that has been offended.

I think that is a limited reading of the word, especially in the context of the NT, whose language and terms may have been influenced by the LXX. I think one has to go root around in Hebrew, especially in the word KPR.

I think this is an example of how the presupposition influences the translation and the Bible ends up confirming rather than forming theology.

As part of the old Episcopal communion service there was, after the general confession and declaration of absolution, what's called the "Comfortable [in the sense of 'strengthening'] Words" it was a little cento of Scripture verses which ended,

Here also what St. John saith: If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous; and he is the propitiation of our sins.

In recent years (like the last 50 years, give or take) the thinking is that Cranmer (who was certainly very influenced by Calvin) was sort of over-specific in choosing "propitiation" to translate "hilasmos".

Unsurprisingly, the Episcopalians wussed out and settled for "perfect offering" which really steers carefully past any useful translation. I kind of like "expiation", but I'm not wedded to it.

I think that to limit one's understanding of the atonement to propitiation of the wrath of an offended God, is insufficient.

KPR literally means "cover" (and is thus more evidence that Hebrew is an Indo-European language). And there are sacrifices in which the blood of the victim is not only sprinkled on the altar but on the people -- as though without a little extra 'blood (='life') they could not bear reconciliation with The God of the Living.

I think that sin 'offends' God AND damages the sinner. So God somehow needs propitiating AND the sinner needs, uh, repair, cleaning up, something.

So the "washed in the blood of the Lamb" language is not, I think, ONLY about propitiating God, but also about literally (I mean, in the metaphor) 'covering the stain of sin." So, it is as if, when God looks at the sinner he does not see all the damage and soil of sin, but the cleansing, vivifying blood of the lamb.

To me "propitiation" goes to the offended party, while "expiation" goes to the offense.

This is not meant argumentatively but just to lay before you some more ideas about the atonement. There are more even than these.

One of the aspects of Calvinism that finally led me to drop it is that it selects Scriptures and on the basis of that selection produces what seems to me an oversimplified theology which does have a certain coherence but simply does not answer to the phenomena it is intended to explain.