At the time when the Christian Reformed Church was discussing the idea of adopting the Revised Standard Version as one of its official versions for use on the pulpit, there was some discussion about the RSV’s substitute of the word “expiation” for “propitiation” in passages such as Rom. 3:25; I John 2:2 and 4:10. Since that time it appears we have quietly accommodated ourselves to the change and perhaps even to the idea behind the change. But it is not a minor matter, and the theology that lies behind it is far from innocent. So maybe we should just remind ourselves of what is at stake.
Leon Morris in The New Bible Dictionary succinctly explains the difference between the two words this way:
Expiation properly has a thing as its object. We may expiate a crime, or a sin. Propitiation is a personal word. We propitiate a person rather than a sin . . . . If we are to think of our relationship to God as basically personal we cannot afford to dispense with the concept of propitiation. . . . (I)f the relationship with God is the primary thing, then it is difficult to see how expiation is adequate. Once we bring in the category of the personal we need some such term as propitiation. (pp. 405–6)
Elsewhere he says:
The objection to propitiation arises largely from an objection to the whole idea of the wrath of God, which many exponents of this view relegate to the status of an archaism. They feel that modern man cannot hold such an idea. But the men of the Old Testament had no such inhibitions. . . .
Christ did not save men from nothing at all. He delivered them from a very real peril. The sentence of judgment had been passed against them. The wrath of God hung over them. Paul has strongly emphasized the wrath of God throughout these opening chapters, and therefore Christ’s saving work must include deliverance from this wrath . . . .
“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. (Ibid., pp. 1046–7)
John Murray in his Redemption Accomplished & Applied similarly puts it this way:
Propitiation presupposes the wrath and displeasure of God, and the purpose of propitiation is the removal of this displeasure. Very simply stated the doctrine of propitiation means that Christ propitiated the wrath of God and rendered God propitious to his people. (p. 30)
A similar misunderstanding arises with respect to the meaning of reconciliation. Kooistra says in his catechism book, By Grace Through Faith, that the idea that “Jesus would want to reconcile God to us and not reconcile us to God” is an “idea (which) is in direct conflict with Paul’s message in 2 Cor. 5” (p. 106). But as Murray has shown very clearly, that is a very superficial analysis of the biblical teaching.
When we examine the Scripture more closely we shall find the reverse to be the case. It is not our enmity against God that comes to the forefront in the reconciliation but God’s alienation from us. This alienation on the part of God arises indeed from our sin; it is our sin that evokes this reaction of his holiness. But it is God’s alienation from us that is brought into the foreground whether the reconciliation is viewed as action or result. (Ibid., p. 34)
Murray then goes on to prove this conclusively from various passages of Scripture.
The reason why it’s not unimportant for us to be reminded of these things is because in the theological world of today the idea of the wrath of God is not at all popular. Think for example, of Dr. Wiersinga of the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands, in whose thinking the whole idea of the atonement has been scrapped. Think also of the general theological climate in the World Council of Churches, and also in Neo-Pentecostal circles of Evangelicalism. Concomitant with a de-emphasis on the wrath of God comes a rather superficial concept of sin, as shown clearly in Wiersinga’s book, Doem of Daad. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
As to Bible translation itself, perhaps we should reinstate the word “propitiation” again, as the KJV & the old and new American Standard Versions have it. Unless we can come up with a more modern word that clearly conveys the meaning of “propitiation.” The NIV has “atoning sacrifice,” but it is doubtful if that does justice to the concept. Perhaps “satisfaction,” as suggested in the margin of the NASB is more suitable. In any case, whatever word we use, we had better see clearly the theological implications that are involved.
