Aspects of Atonement: What Did Jesus' Death on the Tree Accomplish?

[footwasher]

I've often studied this explanation, but have never found out why the Jewish translators of the Septuagint preferred expiation to propitiation:

Quote
The case for translating hilasterion as "expiation" instead of "propitiation" was put forward by C. H. Dodd in 1935 and at first gained wide support. As a result, hilasterion has been translated as "expiation" in the RSV and other modern versions. 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 Old Testament) that kapporeth (Hebrew for "atone") is often translated with words that mean "to cleanse or remove" (Dodd, "The Bible and the Greeks", p 93).

[RBerman]

I've often studied this explanation, but have never found out why the Jewish translators of the Septuagint preferred expiation to propitiation:

Quote
The case for translating hilasterion as "expiation" instead of "propitiation" was put forward by C. H. Dodd in 1935 and at first gained wide support. As a result, hilasterion has been translated as "expiation" in the RSV and other modern versions. 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 Old Testament) that kapporeth (Hebrew for "atone") is often translated with words that mean "to cleanse or remove" (Dodd, "The Bible and the Greeks", p 93).http://propitiation.askdefine.com/

I find that a helpful clarification; God's love is logically prior to the propitiation of God's wrath, and indeed is the engine behind said propitiation.

[hedrick]

For me, the problem both with propitiation and appeasement is that they suggest something that convinces God to do something. But as RBerman points out, advocates of penal substitution don't mean that. Calvin is very clear that despite the fall, God finds something in us that he cares about, and establishes the cross as a way to save us. That's why I think it make more sense to say that sin creates a discombobulation of the universe which has to be dealt with (no, God can't just ignore it without damage), and Jesus takes it on himself. When you allow for appease and propitiate not really meaning what they sound like, it's not clear to me whether there's much of a difference.

I conjecture that this is why the LXX translators chose not to use propitiate, because in normal Greek usage it meant something that not even RBerman would want to say.

But I don't see why Rom 3:25 is such a key point in supporting propitiation. It just says that God had passed over sin but now deals with it through Christ's death. It seems pretty neutral in terms of explanation.

[RBerman]

For me, the problem both with propitiation and appeasement is that they suggest something that convinces God to do something. But as RBerman points out, advocates of penal substitution don't mean that. Calvin is very clear that despite the fall, God finds something in us that he cares about, and establishes the cross as a way to save us. That's why I think it make more sense to say that sin creates a discombobulation of the universe which has to be dealt with (no, God can't just ignore it without damage), and Jesus takes it on himself. When you allow for appease and propitiate not really meaning what they sound like, it's not clear to me whether there's much of a difference.

I conjecture that this is why the LXX translators chose not to use propitiate, because in normal Greek usage it meant something that not even RBerman would want to say.

Which Septuagint passages are we talking about?

Certainly the Christian view of propitiation places God's will logically prior to everything, whereas the pagan view of propitiation generally denies that the gods have even simple foreknowledge, let alone Calvinistic foreordination. For a pagan, the gods have passions which get riled up and have to get calmed down by sacrifices so that they don't kick the cat, so to speak. Whereas for Christians, God's wrath/fury over sin is not just a pouty snit, but a result of his holy righteousness which brooks no rebellion. Just as God's love is not some abstract emotion but is our way of describing God's favorable disposition which causes him to perform certain good deeds toward people, so too God's wrath is not abstract but describes the reality that due to sin, divinely ordained adverse repercussions (not just impersonal tit-for-tat karma) are on the way. In his love, God chose to bear those adverse repercussions himself, in and through Christ. Thus is God both just and the justifier.

[hedrick]

Which Septuagint passages are we talking about?

You said "but have never found out why the Jewish translators of the Septuagint preferred expiation to propitiation:" That's what I was referring to.

[RBerman]

You said "but have never found out why the Jewish translators of the Septuagint preferred expiation to propitiation:" That's what I was referring to.

Actually, that was Footwasher who said that. I don't know what passages he's talking about either.

[hedrick]

[robrecht]

I find that a helpful clarification; God's love is logically prior to the propitiation of God's wrath, and indeed is the engine behind said propitiation.

How can we say what is logically prior in God?

[RBerman]

How can we say what is logically prior in God?

Only with great trepidation. We know of God's wrath over sin. Yet, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

[RBerman]

The same could be said of every human term applied to God. He's not identical to our own fathers, for instance. Yet by way of analogy, we routinely apply to God terms which imperfectly fit the use of those same terms apply in other settings. So we use the term in question and then clarify the boundaries of its applicability.

"Main goal" depends entirely on what other aspects of Christ's atoning work one is willing to affirm. As I've said before, a bare penal substitution view of atonement leads to an unhealthy easy-believism and to antinomianism. And conversely, rejection of penal substitution leads to some combination of a theoretical neglect of God's holiness and justice, and/or a legalistic attempt to earn God's favor by following Christ's example. So yes, a lopsided penal view is a problem. But not a fully orbed view of the atonement which includes penal substitution alongside other balancing truths.

I see it similarly to how justification without adoption or sanctification causes problems. The concepts can, and must, be distinguished, even though they co-occur. It needn't be the case that, "our main problem is that God wants to punish us." It only has to be a legitimate problem, not the main one. "How can you escape God's wrath for your disobedience?" is certainly a theme upon which Scripture exhorts us to meditate.

Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels [to Moses] proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? (Hebrews 2:1-3)

[Paprika]

I find that a helpful clarification; God's love is logically prior to the propitiation of God's wrath, and indeed is the engine behind said propitiation.

Could you clarify what you mean by logical prior with respect to God's love and wrath?

[robrecht]

Only with great trepidation. We know of God's wrath over sin. Yet, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

That's not what I mean. How can we say anything at all about what is 'logically prior' in God?

[dacristoy]

Such as...

I think it focuses the atonement in the wrong place because it suggests that our main problem is that God wants to or needs to punish us, and he has to find a way to avoid that.

Absolutely plausible that a holy God would need to impose a consequence and a penalty when we "volitionally" choose to disobey him...

[RBerman]

That's not what I mean. How can we say anything at all about what is 'logically prior' in God?

That was the question I was answering. Footwasher's quotation elaborates on this topic.

[footwasher]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propitiation