Propitiation or expiation: reconciling God’s love and justice

Table of Contents

Table of contents …………………………………………………………………….. 1

Propitiation or expiation: reconciling God’s love and justice ……………………. 2

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………… 2

1. Current and historical theological positions on propitiation…………………. 3

1.1 Evangelical versus liberal theological perspective on atonement …... 3

1.2 Subjective theories of atonement ..………………………….................. 5

1.2.1 Moral-influence theory ………………………………………….. 5

1.3 Objective theories of atonement ………………………………………… 5

1.3.1 Penal-substitution theory ……………………………………….. 6

2

.

Select exegetical texts on propitiation

…………………………………………

7

2.1 Kapār: Leviticus 16 ……………………………………………………….. 8

2.1.1 Kippūr: atonement …………………………………...…………….. 8

2.1.2 Kappōret: mercy seat ……………………………………………… 10

2.1.3 Kōper: ransom ……………………………………………………… 10

2.2 Hilastērion: …………………………….................................................. 12

2.2.1 Hebrews 9:5 ……………………………………………………….. 12

2.2.2 Romans 3:25 ………………………………………………………. 13

2.3 Hilāsmos: 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 ………………………………………….. 15

2.4 Hilāskomai: Hebrews 2:17 and Luke 18:13 ……………………………. 15

3

.

Construction of a theological model of propitiation and its application

………

16

3.1 The attributes of God pertaining to propitiation ……………………….. 17

3.1.1 God’s holiness …………………………………………………… 17

3.1.2 God’s wrath ……………………………………………………… 18

3.1.3 God’s justice ……………………………………………………... 20

3.1.4 God’s love ………………………………………………………... 20

3.2 Implications of propitiation for New Testament believers 22

……………..

Summary and conclusion …………………………………………………………… 24

Works cited …………………………………………………………………………… 24

1

Propitiation or expiation: reconciling God’s love and justice

IntroductionThus says the LORD: "Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD".

(Jer. 9:23-24 English Standard Version)1

The quotation above from Jeremiah 9:23-24 reveals a paradox within the traditional

gospel message. A question that illustrates this paradox is, “how can God be loving

and angry at the same time?” In order to fully understand this, one needs to have

personal knowledge of the Lord. An aspect of who God is, is revealed within God’s

judgement of humanity. Understanding atonement can therefore help in answering

these questions. More specifically the doctrine of propitiation directly addresses

God’s character within the theme of atonement.

The reason for writing about the doctrine of propitiation is personal. A few of years

ago a friend of mine introduced me to an itinerant preacher named Paul Washer.

Within his sermons, for the first time, I heard about the doctrine of propitiation and it

changed my walk with God in a profound way. In Washer’s (2012) book, “Ten

indictments against the modern church”, he accuses the church of being ignorant of

the totality of the gospel message. The gospel message in many parts of the modern

church is that God cannot be angry because He is a God of love. I have found this

type of preaching to be prevalent as I have not heard the doctrine of propitiation

preached in any of the churches I’ve been to. Even Charles H. Dodd (1884 – 1973),

a valuable and historically important New Testament scholar, rejected the doctrine of

propitiation as unbiblical (Dodd 1931:360). This must change because the doctrine of

propitiation, I believe, is the heart of the gospel.

This essay tries to emulate a typical systematic theological methodology in

detailing an account of appropriate historic and current views on propitiation.

Furthermore it identifies the relevant biblical passages connected to the essay’s topic

in order to extract important doctrinal information (Erikson 1989:73). Further, I will

then aim to explain how this information is relevant and purposeful to New Testament

believers. Throughout this essay I will attempt to compare the scriptures of the Old

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.

2

and New Testaments to show the progressive nature of revelation and thus its divine

inspiration (2 Ti. 3:16). Specific to this paper, the thematic concept is atonement, the

topic is propitiation, and the focus is on God’s attributes of love and justice.

The primary objective of this essay is to investigate whether God’s attributes of

love and justice are compatible with one another, and if this is demonstrated by the

doctrine of propitiation. The central idea that shall be argued is that the biblical

concept of atonement is more than a cancellation of sins (expiation), but also an

appeasement of God’s wrath through an offering (propitiation) because God’s

holiness demands justice.

1. Current and historical theological positions on propitiation

A crucial issue within the Bible is reconciling sinful people to a holy God; however, no

New Testament author sets out a precise theory of atonement (Morris in Elwell

2001:278). So, in order to systematise doctrine, theologians throughout the ages

have tried to set forth a theory of atonement from their gleanings of scripture. This

section will examine theologians and their theories as they defend or object to the

doctrine of propitiation. It is usually an evangelical methodology that defends the

doctrine of propitiation, while it is usually a liberal methodology that objects to the

doctrine of propitiation. This examination is done in order to provide a context within

the essay for the topic of atonement into which the doctrine of propitiation fits.

Context is important as it provides the foundation for a more focused investigation of

selected exegetical texts on propitiation which will be in section two (Smith

2008:192). The exegetical texts in section two have been chosen to show the

doctrine of propitiation as a biblical concept which highlights God’s love and justice

as compatible. Section two will then inform this essay’s theological model of

propitiation and its application in section three (Erickson 1989:802).

1.1 Evangelical versus liberal theological perspective on atonement

According to Erickson (1989:801) our reconciliation to God through Christ’s

atonement is comprised of four basic themes which are sacrifice, propitiation,

substitution and reconciliation. These basic themes are from an evangelical

interpretation of scripture because that is the perspective from which Erickson

(1989:9) writes. Erickson (1989:815-818) notes that there is opposition to all four of

these basic motifs of the atonement by various theologians. Due to the scope of this

3

essay however, I will not engage in a debate of the doctrine of sacrifice, substitution

or reconciliation. My presupposition is that all of these themes are biblical truths and

are accepted as such. Only the doctrine of propitiation will be examined. Propitiation

is the key theme in this essay, therefore it will be valuable to define the meaning. The

term expiate is often used as a replacement for the term propitiation and therefore it

will also be valuable to define this term as well2. Leon Morris (1914 - 2006) was an

evangelical New Testament scholar who supported the doctrine of propitiation3. For

this reason I will rely on Morris’ definition of the two terms. According to Morris (in

Elwell 2001:2139) propitiation means, “the turning away of God’s wrath by an

offering”, while expiation is “the cancellation of sin”.

The doctrine of propitiation is not isolated from the other basic motifs of

atonement; however, a cursory explanation of how all these motifs are interlinked is

fitting for the time being. As God is holy, He is separated from any sin (Is. 6; Rev.

4:8), and hates sin (Ps. 5:5; Rom. 5:9). As God hates sin, He has a righteous anger

toward sin and sinners which must be propitiated (Lev. 4:45, 16; Ps. 5:5; Rom. 1:18).

Through Adam’s sin, humanity inherits a sinful nature (Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12), and thus

sins (Rom. 3:10). The penalty of sin is death (Gen. 2:17; Rom 6:23). In order to

‘avoid’ the penalty of sin, a substitution must be made, so that we can be reconciled

to God (Rom. 5:10). God Himself sacrificed Jesus to be an everlasting propitiation so

that we can be reconciled to Him (Is. 53; Heb. 9:6-15; Rom. 3:25).

Due to the scope of this essay, only two theories of atonement will be examined.

They are chosen because they are well suited for comparative purposes as they

either defend or object to the doctrine of penal-substitution. They are also largely

subjective or objective in nature which in my opinion, supports either the

presuppositions of evangelical4 or liberal hermeneutics. Evangelical theories of

atonement are mostly objective, while liberal theories of atonement are mostly

subjective. Smith (2008:183-184) observes that the presuppositions of evangelical

theology is markedly different from liberal theology. One of the most notable

2 See Revised Version Bible and New English Bible. New International Bible uses “atoning sacrifice”.3 Morris L 1955. Propitiation 1 and Propitiation 2 In The apostolic preaching of the cross (pp. 144-213). Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans.4 I will be adopting the presuppositions of the evangelical perspective on systematic theology. These presuppositions are explained in detail in pp. 183 to 185 in Smith’s 2008 work listed in the works cited section of this essay.

4

differences is that liberal theologians do not regard the Bible as the spoken word of

God and therefore their theology more often than not becomes subjective.

1.2 Subjective theories of atonement

From a desire for a God who is personal, relatable and understanding of the human

condition, comes the moral-influence theory.

1.2.1 Moral-influence theory

The main proponent of this theory was Peter Abelard (1079 – 1142). According to

Grudem (1994:581) Abelard held that Christ’s death is not a payment for sin but a

way for God to substantiate His love for us through Christ. This is because Christ

knew what it meant to suffer, even to death. Abelard regarded humanity to be

spiritually ignorant and thus afraid of God. Having the example of Christ’s death

however, would change our perceptions and help us to embrace God because of

what Christ did (Erickson 1989:785). Horace Bushnell (1802-1876) revived this

theory and focused on Christ’s empathy. Bushnell (2012[1866]:224) reasoned that

Christ, like us, knew what it was like to suffer under the tyranny of evil. He knew what

injustice felt like and could thus be a more personal God to us.

God’s attribute of love is emphasised to an illogical point in this theory, however

the stress placed on the extreme example of love Christ showed us is a very valuable

point to help us to be more grateful to God (Morris in Elwell 2001:280).

My main objection to this theory is that it shows a type of God who is similar to a

grandfather. There is no penalty to be paid, no appeasement to a wrathful God, no

fear given to a holy God, no sacrifice, no justice or redemption. As Bushnell

2012[1866]:788 conveyed, God just wants to be our friend, to meet our need for

acceptance and love. This theory becomes very problematic when confronted with

verses such as Isaiah 53:5, 10 where Christ was “pierced for our transgressions” and

God was pleased to “crush Him [Christ]”. These two verses alone show that Christ

died for our sins, and that Christ satisfied God’s wrath. Therefore I believe that this

theory doesn’t satisfy the four basic motifs of the atonement either.

1.3 Objective theories of atonement

Out of a critique of Catholic church dogma, 16 th century Reformers saw penal-

substitution as the biblical theory of atonement (Neff 2008:69).

5

1.3.2 Penal-substitution theory

By offering himself [Jesus] as a sacrifice, by substituting himself for us, by actually bearing the punishment which should have been ours, Jesus appeased the Father and effected a reconciliation between God and man. (Erickson 1989:814-15)

The definition above is appropriate as it includes the words of the four basic motifs of

the atonement and as it is by the same author, this creates consistency throughout

the essay. Adherents of this theory believe that because God is a holy God, He

required justice to be done because His laws were broken (Grudem 1994:580). They

also believe that God’s righteous anger was directed against those who broke His

laws. Humanity, as the law-breakers, were therefore meant to die, but because God

loved us, He sent His Son Jesus to die in our place. As Jesus was perfectly

righteous, He could be our righteousness and thus perfectly satisfy God’s wrath

through His sacrifice.

Some modern theologians who support the theory are: Roger Nicole (1915 -

2010), Leon Morris (1914 - 2006), James I. Packer (b. 1926), Millard J. Erickson (b.

1932), John MacArthur (b. 1939), D.A Carson (b. 1946) and Wayne Grudem (b.

1948) (Mayhue 2009:140-141). J.I. Packer (2007:53) states that the theory of penal-

substitution is the “distinguishing mark” of evangelicals.

Establishing the lineage of the doctrine is very important as some liberal

Protestants such as Peter Fiddes and Gustaf Aulēn believe that penal-substitution is

a relatively new doctrine originating from the Reformers and was not taught during

the patristic and medieval eras (Vlach 2009:200). This is not true, as the early church

fathers, such as Athanasius (c. AD 300 – 373), Clement of Rome (c. AD 95 – 105),

Ignatius (c. AD 100 – 120) and Polycarp (c. AD 110 – 120), laid a very strong

theological foundation on which the doctrine is built and that stretches from the post-

apostolic era to today. This is a strong indication that the theory is biblically sound.

The strengths of this theory are that it takes into account the holiness of God

which demands justice, the serious nature of sin and its clear exposition of Bible

verses that declare the wrath of God. The implications of this theory for a New

Testament audience will be discussed in further detail in section three; however, two

points can be stated now. Firstly, without its soteriological emphasis we would still be

condemned sinners (Morris 1965:410). Secondly, the doctrine of God is always at

play in any attempt at understanding any scripture (Erickson 1989:802). The way we

6

see God affects our theology, and the view of God this doctrine promotes is a strong

point in its favour. God is holy, and therefore He cannot tolerate evil. God is

righteous, therefore He cannot tolerate injustice. God is love, therefore He seeks the

higher good of others. A holy God therefore has righteous indignation at sinners. This

is a very contentious issue for many theologians, and is the issue to be reconciled in

this essay. Among those liberal theologians who deny the doctrine of propitiation are

Charles H. Dodd (1884 – 1973), Daniel Bell (b. 1966), Joel Green (b. 1956), Mark

Baker (b. 1957) and Steve Chalke (b. 1955).

There are many objections towards the penal-substitution theory as a whole,

however, I will focus on the element of propitiation because it relates to the topic of

this essay. Roger Nicole (1955:126), an evangelical, notes that C.H. Dodd is a part of

the ‘modern’ liberal theological movement. Dodd is a well-esteemed New Testament

scholar and his work on the doctrine of propitiation was revolutionary for its time.

Nicole (1955:122) writes that in his day Dodd was “the most influential opponent of

the idea of propitiation”. When reading about the topic of atonement today, it is still

very difficult not to come across references to his name. Dodd himself wrote a key

article in its time that was entitled, “Hilāskomai: its cognates, derivatives and

synonyms in the Septuagint”. This article denies propitiation in favour of expiation

(1931:360). Dodd is unsatisfied with the classical and Koiné Greek meaning of

hilāskomai because he finds it ambiguous. Dodd therefore seeks to examine the term

as it is used in the Septuagint version (LXX) since it underlies the language of the

New Testament (p. 352). According to Dodd, his examination of the term suggests it

means a nullification of sin rather meaning an appeasing a deity because that type of

language belongs to a pagan context and not a biblical one (p. 355).

The commonality between these two different theories is that they demonstrate

the extreme implications of Christ’s death on the cross and how it is the crux of

Christianity. The work Christ did on the cross is what enables us to be reconciled to

God (Eph. 2:16) (Morris in Elwell 2001:283). Each theory of the atonement has an

element of truth to it, revealing the deep and intricate nature of the atonement;

however, some theories contain more weaknesses than others. The strongest theory

in my opinion is penal-substitution because it is the most biblically sound according to

the four basic themes of the atonement. Section two seeks to focus on key biblical

texts which support the penal-substitution theory.

7

2. Select exegetical texts on propitiation

The following texts will be investigated in order to unlock the understanding of the

original audience of the Bible as to what they meant (i.e., the ‘author-intended

meaning’) (Smith 2008:170). Knowledge of the author-intended meaning is important

because it aids in correct interpretation and accurate understanding. If an accurate

understanding from the Old Testament text can be ascertained, then this will be

advantageous in correctly understanding the author-intended meaning in the New

Testament as well. This is vital, as it will be shown that there is a direct connection

between the Old Testament kāpar word group and the New Testament hilask- word

group and this will be useful to the argument. Examining the sacrificial symbols and

language of Leviticus will provide a valuable background for the interpretation of New

Testament texts, particularly regarding Romans and Hebrews which relies heavily

upon an understanding of the Old Testament sacrificial system (van Gemeren in

Elwell 2001:19101). In support of this, Allman (2015:351) writes that the hilask- word

group appears 117 times in the Hebrew Bible. One sixth of these appearances

occurs in passages of restriction in Leviticus chapters 4 (the sin offering), 12-15

(purity regulations) and 16 (Day of Atonement), while Leviticus as a whole accounts

for over 40 percent of its appearances.

2.1 Kāpar: Leviticus 16

The Old Testament kāpar word group meaning “I, make atonement, make

reconciliation, purge” is the equivalent of the New Testament hilask- word group

(Harris, Gleason and Waltke 2003:452). The kāpar word group comprises kippūr

meaning “atonement”, kōper, meaning “ransom”, and kappōret meaning “mercy

seat”. The kāpar word group will be examined mostly from Leviticus 16 which deals

with the most the pivotal offering in the Jewish calendar, that is, the sin offering made

on the Day of Atonement or Yom kippūr.

2.1.1 Kippūr: atonement

The Hebrew word kippūr means “atonement” and is the word used in Leviticus 16

twelve times (Harris et al. 2003:452). The literary context in which atonement is

located within Leviticus is the major theme of Israel’s state of ritual cleanness or

uncleanness. Being (un)clean directly relates to the topic of holiness and finds its

culmination in Leviticus which details how to become clean after one has become

8

unclean (Sprinkle 2000:637). The central place to become ritually clean was the

tabernacle or temple which was a sacred space. The tabernacle, however, could not

be permitted to become unclean because a holy God lived there (Harris 2003:788).

After the ill conduct of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10), God set up the full priestly order

and Aaron was told immediately to make a sacrifice, and how to offer it (Lev. 16)

(Milgrom 1991[1923]:1080). This special sacrifice was to be made once a year on a

day that would be known as “The Day of Atonement” (Lev. 23:27). The Day of

Atonement would be when the high priest would offer the sacrifice and all the sins of

the Israelites could be atoned for (Lev. 16:17, 24). This teaching on holiness would

later serve as valuable ground work for Jesus Christ and the New Covenant (Gal

3:23-24).

It will be valuable for an understanding of the rest of the essay to briefly give an

account of the Day of Atonement. In order for the high priest not to perish, he would

offer incense on the fire of the incense altar so that a cloud of incense would cover

the mercy seat (Lev. 16:13). Then the high priest would sacrifice a bull for his own,

and his family’s iniquities (Lev. 16:6). He would then sprinkle the blood of the bull on

the mercy seat in the Most Holy Place (v. 14) and then on the horns of the altar (v.

18). Next he would place two goats before the tent of meeting, one for the LORD and

one for Azazel5 (v. 8). The goat for the Lord would be offered as a sin offering and its

blood would be sprinkled on the mercy seat and horns of the altar (v. 15). The high

priest would then place his hands on the head of the scapegoat and confess the sins

of Israel and send it off into the wilderness (v. 21). The high priest would then come

back and make a burnt offering (v. 24).

Erickson (1989:805) notes the objective effect of the blood sacrifice which was

sprinkled on the mercy seat. As can be seen, the blood sacrifice was a key aspect of

the Day of Atonement ritual. Some theorists like Bell (2009:40) boldly proclaim that

no Christian ever “endorsed” blood sacrifice, and that such a construct is used simply

to justify war and capital punishment. Bell negatively calls penal-substitution a theory

of “redemptive violence”. Bell pointedly states that God does not require blood to

redeem us (p. 41), and that Christ’s work on the cross is not a “cover” for redemptive

violence (p. 53). Instead, he maintains that Jesus does not offer himself for our sin,

but rather offers himself as our substitute so that we can receive life (p. 60). This is

not true, as it is blood that represents life in the Bible (Heb. 9:22). It is truly Jesus’ life

5 Azazel meaning “scapegoat” (Baker and Carpenter 1992:§H5799).

9

that redeems us and covers our sin. Bell continually asserts that it is the act of

violence and suffering that redeems someone according to the penal-substitution

theory. Bell (p. 44) also implies that people who hold to the penal-substitution theory

believe that the priests who performed the sacrifices must have sadistically enjoyed

them. I know of no scripture that directly or indirectly implies this. The priests who

performed the sacrifices were merely being compliant to the ordinances of God (Lev.

16:2, 34). Bell does not address God’s holiness at all, or the implications of the mercy

seat, or the meaning of ransom, nor does Bell properly exegete the passages that

undergird the theory of substitution. Therefore I feel the reasoning behind his

terminology of “redemptive violence” is faulty. The areas that Bell has left out will be

examined now.

2.1.2 Kappōret: the mercy seat

The sin offering in Leviticus 16 was made by the high priest who entered through the

inner veil (Lev. 16:15) and sprinkled blood on the mercy seat (kappōret) (Harris et al.

2003:453). The mercy seat referred to the golden cover of the sacred Ark of the

Covenant (Ex. 25:17-22), of the tabernacle or temple. Numbers 7:89 tells us that it

was above the mercy seat that God met with His people; this is a concept that Paul

revives in Romans 3:25 when Paul says Jesus is our propitiation which is the same

word as ‘mercy seat’ in Hebrews 9:5. The blood from the sacrificial animal that was

sprinkled on the mercy seat represented the ‘life’ of the people who were seeking

atonement and thus the animal became a substitution for the sinner (Lev. 17:11-14).

Blood is not only important because it represents life, but without it, there can be no

remission of sins (Heb. 9:22). The reason is because sin brought death into the world

(Rom. 5:12), and therefore the person who sins must die as the penalty for sin.

Without the substitution of the animal, it would be the sinner dying. The transference

of sin from the person to the animal was signified by placing the person’s hand on the

animal and confessing the sins of the people (Lev. 16:21). As mentioned earlier the

goat whose blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat was a sacrifice that acted as a

substitutionary offering for the people of Israel (Harris et al. 2003:453).

2.1.3 Kōpper: ransom

Kāpar, the root word of kōpper, makes the meaning of the word “ransom” clearer

because together they mean “to atone by making a sacrifice” (Harris et al. 2003:453).

The majority of the uses of kōpper in scripture concern the priestly ritual of sprinkling

10

the sacrificial blood and it is always used in connection with the removal of sin. It

signified a ransom which was associated with an exchange of a guilty life for an

innocent life which would redeem the people of Israel by removing their sin. This

exchange was demonstrated by the blood of the first goat and the release of the

scapegoat into the wilderness which carried the sins of the people. Isaiah 53:10

further supports this by stating that Jesus made a guilt offering on our behalf,

therefore the guilt of our sin is atoned for. Also, just as the goat bore the sins of the

people into the wilderness, so Jesus bore our sins (Is. 53:5, 6, 11). The ransom motif

becomes even clearer in the New Testament where Jesus forecast His death and

said of Himself that He would be a ransom for sin (Matt. 20:28, cf. Mar. 10:45; 1 Ti.

2:6). The ransom was paid to God, by God, just as in the Old Testament (Lev.

17:11). This point is referred to again in the New Testament by both Paul and John.

Morris (1998[1988]§Rom.3:24) believes that Paul was aware of the sub-text of

buying back slaves in Leviticus 25:44-46 when he said we are “redeemed in Christ”

(Rom. 3:24). This phase echoes the payment made on behalf of those who were sold

into slavery in order to buy them back. Spiritually, Jesus buys us back from being

slaves to sin (Rom. 7:14). Also, John in chapter 4, verse 10, makes it clear that the

love that God showed us was manifested by substituting His Son for the world, as a

sacrifice, in order to appease God’s wrath so that we can be reconciled to God.

According to van Gemeren (in Elwell 2001:1901) the instructions on the offerings

and sacrifices are the core of the redemption teaching, both in the Old and New

Testaments. In New Testament times, after Jesus’ resurrection, the apostles used

the Old Testament language of sacrifice to apply to Jesus and His work of

atonement. This type of language can be seen in Hebrews 2:17 where Jesus is said

to be our High Priest, and Romans 12:1-2 where Paul urges us be as a living

sacrifice to God. Van Gemeren (p. 1905) notes that the Old Testament offerings can

be broken down into categories. One of these was a propitiatory offering which

included the concept of expiation. The propitiatory offering comprised of the sin

offering and the guilt offering. The sin offering was made at each of the Hebrew

festivals, notably the Day of Atonement as seen in Leviticus 16. The Day of

Atonement was an annual event (Lev. 16:34) in which two goats were sacrificed as a

sin offering (v. 5). Motyer (in Elwell 2003:273) notes that one of the goats was a

private sacrifice occurring in the inner sanctuary and was made only by the high

priest. The other goat, known as the ‘sin-bearer’ (v. 22), was released into the

11

wilderness (v. 10). The purpose of the sin offering was to make the Israelite people

ritually clean and cancel their sins, so that their sins would not defile the tent of

meeting where God resided as stated in Leviticus 16:16.

The sin offering in Leviticus 16 points particularly to the future atoning work of

Jesus Christ in Hebrews 9:7-14 (Currid, Kiuchi, Sklar in Dennis 2007:237). While

words like mercy seat, reconciliation and propitiation are a reoccurring theme in the

Bible. The Greek words hilastērion (Rom. 3:25 and Heb. 9:5), hilāsmos (1 Jn. 2:2 and

4:10), and hilāskomai (Lk. 18:3 and Heb. 2:17) constitute the hilask- word group, and

will be investigated in this section. These three Greek words are valuable as they

represent the only 6 occurrences of this word group in the New Testament (Allman

2015:352).

2.2 Hilastērion:

2.2.1 Hebrews 9:5

Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. (Heb. 9:5)

The Greek word hilastērion translated as “propitiation” in Romans 3:25 and “mercy

seat”6 in Hebrews 9:5 (Zodhiates 1993:771). The Greek word hilastērion means “to

propitiate, expiate”. The LXX translation of “mercy seat” in Leviticus 16 is also

hilastērion (Moo 1996:232). Here in the New Testament the sacrificial language of

the Old Testament becomes very clear, particularly in the verses noted above. This

type of sacrificial language found in Leviticus, makes its way into the book of the

Hebrews (da Silva 2011:800). Leviticus thus becomes the pre-text of Hebrews and

“intertextuality” is the overarching literary device used. Intertextuality, as defined by

Stephens (1992:84), is a process by which meaning is produced “from the

interrelationships between audience, text, other texts, and the socio-cultural

determinations of significance”. Thus within the immediate context of Hebrews, the

author wants to strengthen the faith of the back-sliding recipients by demonstrating

that Jesus Christ ushers in a New Covenant which is better than the Old (Heb. 8:6),

and by re-contextualising the sacrificial language, the author explains how it has

been done (da Silva 2011:802). The explanation given is that Jesus is our only, and

permanent, High Priest (Heb. 7:23-24), unlike the former high priests who died. The

sacrifice Jesus made occurred once and for all (Heb. 7:27), unlike the former high

6 Moo (1996:232) notes this word is translated in the same manner in 21 out of 27 times in the LXX.

12

priest who had to make a sacrifice every year. Jesus chose to offer Himself up (Heb.

7:27, 9:11-14), unlike the sacrificial goats. And Jesus entered the presence of God

through His own blood, unlike the priests who did it through the blood of goats and

calves (Heb. 9:11-14). Jesus now becomes our sin-bearer (Is. 53: 4, 6, 10-12), and

no longer the goat sent into the wilderness. It is now Christ’s blood sprinkled on the

mercy seat and not that of goats and calves. This relation between Christ and the

mercy seat is clearly drawn in Romans 3:25 (Moo 1996:232). The root word kāpar

means atonement, to make reconciliation and purge, and the mercy seat was the

place where God met His people, where reconciliation took place and sins were

expiated and propitiated. Moo (1996:232), referring to Romans 3:25 and

acknowledging the use of the same word in Hebrews 9:5, proposes that Paul’s use of

the term “mercy seat” shows that he meant to use that term as he saw Christ as the

New Covenant equivalent to the Old Testament mercy seat. Now that the term

hilastērion has been explained, another aspect of propitiation will be examined. Part

of propitiation concerns the appeasement of God’s wrath, which Dodd denies

primarily because it does not fit his view of God (Allman 2015:337). In the following

paragraph, God’s wrath in the New Testament will be proved to be a reality and then

in section three, God’s wrath in the Old Testament will be proved to be a reality.

2.2.2 Romans 3:25

… whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (Rom. 3:25)

Morris (1998[1998]:§introduction) asserts the importance of the book of Romans

and points out that it ushered in an era of spiritual renewal through the Reformers.

Romans contained the text that converted John Wesley and shaped Martin Luther’s

theology due to its striking literary feature which heralds detailed and theologically

dense moral exhortations (Schreiner in Dennis 2007:2154). Perhaps the text that can

be said to summarise the whole essence of the book of Romans is in 3:21-26 (Moo

1996:216). Words like “righteousness” (vv. 21, 22, 25), “justified” (v. 24), “grace” (v.

24), “redemption” (v. 24), “faith” (v. 25) and “propitiation” (v. 25), which are

foundational to Christian faith and understanding are all mentioned in these five

verses. However, to appreciate what is often referred to as the heart of the gospel7,

7 Morris (1998[1988]:189), Moo (1996), Grudem (1994:575) and Packer (2006:29-53) all call the section of Romans 3:21-4:25 the “heart of the gospel”.

13

Paul needs to prepare the mind-set of the readers (Moo 1996:92). Sin, wrath and

judgement are pervading themes in Romans 1:18-3:20, until God’s righteousness,

grace and justification express the gospel message 3:21-4:25. The preliminary

discussion (1:18-3:20), which takes place before Paul addresses the heart of the

gospel (3:21-4:25) most certainly affirms that hilastērion means the turning away of

God’s wrath, which renders Dodd’s hypothesis as incorrect. Paul begins with the

statement that no one is righteous apart from God (1:17), and so God’s wrath8 will be

revealed (1:18 c.f. 2:2) towards sinners (1:29-31) in a coming day of wrath (2:5) and

that no one can be saved through the law (2:12) because all have sinned (3:23). In

view of this, how is it possible to be reconciled to a holy God? The answer is through

Jesus, who has been manifested apart from the law (3:21) for He is our propitiation

(3:25).

Like the author of Hebrews, Paul wanted the audience to read a new meaning into

an old text: Jesus is the propitiatory gift by which God chooses to deal with us

mercifully. Contrary to both Zodhiates and Moo, Dodd (1931:360) believes that the

word “propitiation” in Romans 3:25 is inappropriate and should be translated as

“expiate” as it is in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Part of Dodd’s

reasoning is that propitiation has pagan connotations to it; however, I do not see that

as an issue. The Bible is clear in saying that God is not like the other gods (Is. 46:9).

One way in which God is different from the other false gods is that appeasing God’s

wrath is not a form of bribery. God does not accept bribes because it perverts justice

(Pro. 17:23, Deut. 10:17). God’s uniqueness is further revealed in His Holy nature

who cannot tolerate unrighteousness (Erickson 1989:284).

Furthermore, God is the one who provides the sacrifice in both the Old and New

Testaments (Lev. 17:11; Rom. 3:25), unlike a man who would himself make provision

for his sacrifice to a pagan God. In addition to God being unique, in Paul’s epistle to

the Romans, Paul takes great care to show the Roman recipients that they are sinful

and how that the wrath of God is therefore directed against them, and all humanity

(Rom. 1:18, 2:5, 2:8, 3:5, 4:15, 5:9, 12:19 and 13:4-5). Further to Dodd’s discredit,

Erickson (1989:811) points out that in Romans 3:25-26 Paul states that God could be

accused of not dealing with sins in the past because the blood of bulls and goats

could never really be a substitute for sin. But in sending Jesus to die in our place,

8 MacArthur points out that it is important to note that God’s wrath is not merely an emotional outburst, but an emotion directly toward sin because of His holiness (2005:§Rom.1:18, wrath of God).

14

God is just (a penalty must be paid because of sin) and the justifier of the

unrighteous (His love provided the sacrifice). How could God be seen as just and the

justifier if Jesus only expiated sin? Moo (1996:231) writes that in the atonement

“God’s love and wrath meet”, and to deny either undermines what the atonement is

and what it means. How else can the words of Proverbs 17:15, “he who justifies the

wicked is an abomination”, be reconciled with a just God who nevertheless justifies

the ungodly?

2.3 Hilasmos: 1 John 2:2 and 4:10

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1Jn 2:2)

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1Jn 4:10)

The Greek word hilāsmos is translated into the English word “propitiation” in both 1

John 2:2 and 4:10 (Zodhiates 1993:769). The Greek word hilāsmos means “to

propitiate, expiate”. In these two verses we are told that Jesus is the sacrifice that

God sent for the whole world out of His love for us, and He did this not because we

loved Him but because He loved us. Here is a very good example of both God’s love

and wrath. God provided the atonement for us that we could not provide for

ourselves because of our sin. He loved us before we loved Him because this plan

was in place before the beginning of the world (Eph. 1:4). However, Dodd (1931:60)

argues against the use of propitiation here as with Romans and Hebrews for the

same reason as previously mentioned. Zodhiates (1993:769) notes that the noun

hilāsmos is connected to hilāskomai in Hebrews 2:17 where Jesus is both sacrifice

and High Priest which mirrors the work of the high priest on the Day of Atonement in

Leviticus 16.

2.4 Hilāskomai: Hebrews 2:17 and Luke 18:13

Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Heb. 2:17)

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' (Luk. 18:13)

15

The Greek word hilāskomai means “to propitiate” in English, according to Zodhiates

(1993:768). In Luke 18:13 the word is translated as “merciful” in English and as

“propitiation” in Hebrews 2:17. Dodd (1931:359-60) again argues against the

translation of hilāskomai as propitiation in the Luke 18:13 verse but agrees with the

ESV translation reproduced above. I agree with the latter sentiment as it fits the

context, however, the concept of propitiation fits the context of undeserved mercy.

Here, in Luke 18:13, the sinner is asking God to look past his sins and forgive him in

spite of them because he understands how hopeless it is for him to become sinless

(Rom. 3:20). Forgiving the sinner regardless of his merit fits logically with what mercy

means. God does the same for us because for us to be sinless through our merit is

hopeless; and being sinless is the only way to avert God’s wrath because it is our sin

that makes God have righteous anger. Through Jesus’ sinless life and act of

substitution, God no longer looks at our sins because Jesus paid the penalty on our

behalf which is why the substitution is ‘penal’. Jesus’ sinless nature satisfied God’s

wrath. Now, when God looks at a believer He sees the righteousness Jesus has

imputed to us (Rom. 5:17). Our sins are forgiven for His name’s sake (1 Jn. 2:12).

Luke 18:13 and Heb. 2:17 are connected to 1 John 2:2, 4:10 as the noun, hilāsmos,

indicates Jesus as the one who removes sin and as the one who is the means of

removal (Zodhiates 1993:770). Jesus is the one who cleanses us from our sins and

reconciles us to God as indicated in Hebrews 2:17, 9:5; Romans 3:25; and 1 John

2:2, 4:10. Zodhiates writes further that the sins of the people in Hebrews 2:17 are the

direct object of the verb hilāskesthai, therefore it is not the nature of God that is

changed from hatred of man to love, but the nature of man that is changed. This is

precisely why the wrath of God and the love of God are not contradictions. This

thought echoes Paul’s words which say “you are a new creation in Jesus Christ” (2

Cor. 5:17). In this passage of Luke 18:13, it is the individual sinner who is dealt with

mercifully, while in Heb. 2:17 it is the collective sins of the people that are forgiven

because of Christ. In both, sin is the issue. Sin is a problem because of who God is –

holy. In the following section the nature of God will be examined in order to reconcile

God’s love and justice.

3. Construction of a theological model of propitiation and its application

16

So far this essay has looked at the various theories of atonement and the key

exegetical texts in both the Old and New Testaments on which these theories are

based. It has also briefly touched upon key elements of God’s character regarding

propitiation and the theory of penal-substitution. However, a more in-depth

examination of God’s character is needed so that nuances of the concept of

propitiation within the theory of penal-substitution can be more fully integrated into

the argument. The nuances also affect the application of what propitiation means for

the New Testament believer. It is my belief that understanding what the doctrine of

propitiation is will prompt worship in our hearts because we now understand who it is

that we worship.

3.1 The attributes of God pertaining to propitiation

3.1.1 God’s holiness

Washer (2011:§the holiness of God) declares that our understanding of God’s

holiness will affect our approach to the rest of scripture because it is such a

preeminent feature of the biblical message. God’s holiness reflected in His law,

exposes sin and the broken covenant relationship between God and man (Gal 3:21-

24). God’s wrath springs forth from God’s holiness because it is motivated by God’s

hatred of sin. Therefore it is God’s holiness, which is the cornerstone of propitiation.

God’s holiness is emphasised by the use of the Hebraic literary device of repetition in

Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8 where the angels shout, “holy, holy, holy is the Lord

God almighty”. “Holy”, in Hebrew, is qadosh, and is something which is “intrinsically

sacred” and is separate from “the common or profane” (Harris et al. 2003:788).

Holiness is always connected to the character of God as one of His attributes

because it is intrinsic to who He is. Like oil and water, God is totally separate from sin

and hates it (Ps. 5:5), but loves righteousness (Ps. 33:5). As God is the epitome of

holiness, so He is also its source and standard as expressed in the Ten

Commandments (Ex. 20:12-17) (Lewis 2007:1109). God expected the Israelites to

obey his commandments and thus reflect His holy character as seen in the

statement, “Be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44). However they did not (Lev. 10),

therefore God created boundaries within both the tabernacle and through the offering

of sacrifices to show the separation between Him and the people because of their

uncleanness. In contrast to this, Chalke and Mann (2003:58) do not believe that it is

17

God’s holiness that exposes our sinfulness, but His love. If God loves more than we

do and for Him to see humanity’s pain and suffering would cause Him greater pain

than it does for us. Cross-referencing God’s holiness with passages like Isaiah 6 and

Revelation 4 makes it clear that it is revealing that it is God’s holiness, and not His

love, that exposes the sinfulness in man and inspires worship. The seraphim in

Isaiah 6 proclaim God as “holy, holy, holy” (v. 3), upon which Isaiah is struck with a

sense of his own sinfulness which is shown by his response of “Woe is me!” (v. 5). In

Revelation 4 the four living creatures also never cease in announcing that God is

“holy, holy, holy” (v. 8), upon which the 24 elders bow down and worship God (vv.10,

11). In both cases it is the holiness of God, and not His love for others, that motivates

these reactions by the Isaiah and the 24 elders.

In the section below, I will examine God’s holiness in relation to His wrath, justice

and love because these aspects are interlinked and qualify one another.

3.1.2 God’s wrath

In the initial stage of researching God’s attribute of wrath, it is important to examine if

wrath is indeed an attribute of God since this is a key part of the doctrine of

propitiation. Some theologians like Green and Baker find this questionable. Green

and Baker (2011:54) do actually acknowledge the wrath of God, yet they do not

agree that it is an attribute of His. Green et al rather understand Paul’s discussion of

the wrath of God in Romans 1 as God’s judgement on all wickedness and

ungodliness (Rom. 1:18). I do not agree with this as what defines an attribute of God

is a characteristic that is essential to His being (Lewis in Elwell 2001:1099). It is

essential to His being because of the amount of time biblical authors divest in writing

about it and its connection to God’s righteousness. Morris (in Elwell 2001:2139)

notes that wrath is a very real facet to God’s character in both the Old and New

Testament9, as it is mentioned 585 times in the Old Testament alone. These texts

that mention wrath are often connected to God’s love and justice. Justice which is the

enforcement of God’s righteousness means that if God is good and loves all that is

good, He must therefore hate evil and all that is evil10. Grudem’s (1994:206) definition

of wrath is very clear: “God’s wrath means that He intensely hates all sin”, and since

9 To give a few examples: Ex. 32:9-10; Deut. 9:7-8, cf. 29:23; 2 Kings 22:13; Ps. 5:5, 7:11; Jer. 32:37; Lam. 3:43-45; Rom 1:18, cf. 2:5, 8, 3:5, 5:9, 9:22; Eph. 2:3, 5:6; Col. 3:6; 1 Thess. 1:10, 2:16, 5:9; Heb. 3:11; Rev. 6:16-17, 19:15.10 Lewis (in Elwell 2001:1099), Morris (in Elwell 2001:2139), Grudem (1994:179) and Erickson (1989:604-605) all assign wrath as a divine attribute.

18

God’s wrath is so tied up with His attribute of love and justice, it too is an essential

attribute.

Due to the scope of this essay, I will examine just three texts which demonstrate

the connection between God’s wrath, justice and holiness. These three texts have

been chosen because they relate to the exegetical texts in section two of this essay.

The three texts are: the death of Uzziah (2 Chron. 26, Isa. 6); the death of Nadub and

Abihu (Lev. 10, 16); and the righteous judgement of Israel (Isa. 1, 5,6).

Nadab, Abihu and King Uzziah did not obey the laws God laid out regarding the

use of the tabernacle. The tabernacle was a sacred space where only designated

priests (Lev. 8:1-10:20) could make assigned acts of worship (Lev. 6:8-7:38). The

tabernacle had two divisions: “the Holy Place” and the “Most Holy Place” (Ex 26:33).

The Most Holy Place was called that because God resided there (Ex. 29:45), above

the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Ex. 25:10-22). Nadab, Abihu and King

Uzziah did not obey the laws laid out by God with regard to the priestly duties (Ex.

25:1-31-17). Nadab and Abihu offered unauthorised fire on the Altar of Incense (Ex.

30:9; Lev. 10:1), and Uzziah tried to offer incense11 instead of asking the high priest

to do it (Num. 3:10, 2 Chron. 26:16). These infractions were caused by sin: Nadab

and Abihu were probably drunk (Lev. 10:8-9), and Uzziah became proud (2 Chron.

26:15). The result was God’s wrath: Nadab and Abihu were struck with some kind of

divine fire and died (Lev. 10:10) and King Uzziah was struck with leprosy until his

death (2 Chron. 26:18, 23). The reason behind God’s wrath in both cases was His

distinguishing characteristic of holiness and separation from the profane. In the

accounts of Nadab, Abihu and Uzziah, their deaths issued in a new initiatives by the

Lord. Firstly, there was the commission of Isaiah as God’s prophet in Isaiah chapter

6, “In the year that King Uzziah died…” (v. 1). Secondly, in the Day of Atonement in

Leviticus chapter 16, “The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of

Aaron [Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1)] …” While there is no direct reference to God’s

holiness in the account of Uzziah in chapter 26, of 2 Chronicles it is mentioned in

Isaiah 6:3.

The connection between God’s holiness and wrath is prominent in Isaiah 6,

however in order to understand the context of Isaiah 6, it is important to understand

the setting. In Isaiah 1:4 the LORD dramatically declares in verse 1 that Israel is a 11 The text does not say where, but the Altar of Incense what the only place where incense was burnt, so I assume that was the location.

19

“sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity…” Isaiah 5:8-23 explains how they have

forsaken the LORD as stipulated in verse 4 by listing blatant examples of

disobedience12. The Lord’s righteous anger is therefore kindled (v. 25) because of

their flagrant and constant disobedience. The Lord states that His judgement is

coming and this is seen in the parallelisms of “I will make it a waste” (v. 6), “my

people will go into exile” (v. 13), and “He stretched out his hand against them and

struck them” (v. 25). In chapter 6 Isaiah’s vision continues. The Lord is sitting upon a

throne in the temple (v.2) with the seraphim proclaiming, “Holy, holy, holy is the

LORD of hosts… (v. 3)” Upon this revelation of a holy God, Isaiah’s own sinfulness

amongst the nation is exposed and he proclaims his utter wretchedness with the

expression, “Woe is me!” (v. 5). One would think that God’s judgement in exiling his

people would provoke Isaiah to hate God and claim that He is unjust, like so many

people do when they reap the punishment of their own sin. Isaiah’s response

however, is that God is just and he exalts God for it and is proclaimed as holy (Isa.

5:16). God’s holiness is therefore seen in His moral law, His wrath is seen when

Israel disobeys Him, and His justice is seen in the righteous judgement of those

sinning against a Holy God.

3.1.3 God’s justice

From God’s holiness, flows God’s justice. Those failing to adhere to God’s holiness

must suffer the consequences. God has determined those consequences as curses

(Deut 28:15-68), the most severe being death (Rom. 6:23). Israel was to reflect the

holiness of God by being a pure people. For this reason God instituted the sacrifices

so that there was a way for Israel to become clean, once they became unclean (Lev.

10:10). In the accounts of Nadab, Abihu and Uzziah, the consequence of their sin

was death, to which the writer of Genesis confirms God’s judgements as being just

(18:25). The writer of Genesis also says that God’s judgement is shown to be just by

his separation of the treatment of the wicked and the righteous. God only punishes

the wicked (deserving) and not the righteous (underserving). Proverbs 17:15 echoes

this and says that those who justify the wicked are on abomination to God. In other

words, for God to be truly just, He must judge the wicked. So then, how can God

justify humanity (Rom. 3:24), when none of us are righteous (Rom. 3:10), but all are

wicked (Jer. 17:9 King James Version)? This is the crux of the dilemma of the gospel 12 It is likely that the nation forsaking the Lord, and King Uzziah’s forsaking of the LORD, are not a coincidence. Most likely the nation took lead from their King.

20

that the doctrine of propitiation reconciles (Washer 2012§Indictment 4). No wonder

Jeremiah (9:23-24) proclaims the only thing we should boast in is knowing the LORD.

In order to fully understand how this reconciliation between God’s attributes of love

and justice take place, the attribute of love must be examined.

3.1.4 God’s love

Let us examine Isaiah 6 again for a moment. Isaiah’s response in chapter 6 to his

vision of God is that of despair, expressed in the exclamation “Woe is me!” (v. 5). In

verses 6 and 7 the angel cleanses Isaiah’s sin and guilt with a hot coal applied to his

mouth. For God to cleanse Isaiah was an act of grace. God would have had a right to

send Isaiah into exile, like the nation of Israel, or to kill him. Then in verse 8 the Lord

asks “who will go for us?” In response to this Isaiah again exclaims, “Here I am! Send

me.” Isaiah went from an extremely negative feeling to an extremely positive feeling –

in other words he received joyful encouragement through grace. As well as cleansing

Isaiah’s sin, God did not wipe out the nation of Israel but left a remnant, unlike

Sodom and Gomorrah which He utterly destroyed (Isa. 1:9). Leaving a remnant was

not something God was required to do because of their sin (Heb. 10:30), however, in

spite of their sin, God promised to never leave nor forsake Israel (Deut. 31:6). The

verse in Isaiah 1:9 is quoted by Paul in Romans 9:29 but now it refers to the gentiles.

Like the grace given to the underserving Israelites, so too are the gentiles allowed to

become part of God’s family (Rom. 9:26).

Chalke and Mann see God’s love in a different light, for they remove the concept

of a penalty that must be paid because of sin from their theology. The theory of

penal-substitution believes a penalty must be paid because of sin. Chalke et al

(2003:67) rather believe that the inherent ‘goodness’ pronounced over creation by

God (Gen. 1), before the Fall (Gen. 3), is still within people. Chalke et al arrives at

that conclusion because humanity never stopped being made in the image of God

(Gen. 1:26), but believe that after the Fall, our goodness is just hidden. Jesus,

according to Chalke et al, really sees the “original goodness”, of humanity which is a

play on the term “original sin” describing the Fall of humanity in Genesis 3. In fact

Chalke et al (p. 68) go so far as to say that to see humanity as inherently evil and

steeped in original sin is a mistake and a serious error because this has resulted in

the true message of Jesus being lost. The “lost message of Jesus” is to proclaim and

21

demonstrates God’s “outrageous grace, his boundless forgiveness and his limitless

love”. Chalke’s et al theory of atonement is very much like the subjective moral-

influence theory of atonement mentioned in section one of this essay. Christ’s death

is simply there to persuade humanity to become obedient. This theory is severely

lacking in its failure to address sin. Penal-substitution is necessary because it

addresses our inherent sinful natures. Chalke’s et al theory, like the moral-influence

theory, is impotent because it leaves humanity in a seemingly ‘safe’ position because

it doesn’t deal with the problem of sin and falsely pacifies humanity through

ignorance. This can only lead to a superficial experience of worship because of the

weak gospel message.

Referring now to the theory of penal-substitution, what is the source of this kind of

love that encompasses all peoples of all nations and draws them into the family of

God? John writes most clearly about the attribute of God which flows out from who

He is: “…God is love…” (1 John 4:8). The Greek word for love in the aforementioned

verse is agapē and means “love, affectionate regard, goodwill, and benevolence”

(Zodhiates 1993:66). In other words, it is a selfless love that seeks the highest good

in the other person regardless of their standing or worth. God’s love can be seen in

action in verses like 1 John 4:10 and John 3:16. Who else could perfectly satisfy

God’s wrath, justice and righteousness but Jesus Christ who was fully God and fully

man (Col. 2:9)?

3.2 Implications of propitiation for New Testament believers

The theory of penal-substitution poignantly allows God’s love to be displayed as

outstanding due to the implications of propitiation for New Testament believers. I

would like to demonstrate this by way of analogy. What would one think of a person

who died to save someone who they hated and was angry with? In other words, they

died to save their enemy. One would greatly admire that person. One would also

marvel at the type of selfless love shown to the enemy so undeserving. One would

also be bewildered by such love and it would likely inspire one to try to be the same.

Now what would one think of someone who died for their child, spouse or best

friend? You would still applaud such a heroic act but it would not foster the same type

of awe and bewilderment because it seems more ‘natural’ to human nature to save

someone you love. The Bible says God is like the first example. Paul says, it is easy

22

enough to die for a righteous person but not so for an unrighteous person (Rom. 5:7).

This is the power of the gospel (Rom. 1:16) which makes it good news (Acts 8:35).

God hates us (Ps. 5:5) and is angry at us every day (Ps. 7:11) because of our sins.

Yet He selflessly loved us enough to send His Son Jesus to die in our place (Jn.

3:16), even while we were His enemies (Rom. 5:10). This type of love that God

shows us is what is contrary to selfish human nature, and therefore we marvel, are

bewildered, and are inspired by it. This is why the ransom, moral-influence, and

satisfaction theory is insufficient. The focus is not on God; His righteous wrath toward

sin is denied; the enormity of His selfless love dissipates and the weight of sin is

robbed from the gospel story, rendering it a dull sword.

However, the result or implications of the kind of love God gives when Jesus is

the perfect satisfaction toward God’s wrath, inspires the believer to praise God. Both

Psalm 33:5 and Jeremiah 9:23-24 speak of the steadfast love of the LORD which

means that God’s love and kindness are eternal. The words “steadfast love” do not

speak only of God’s love and kindness, but also of His mercy, goodness, and

faithfulness (Baker and Carpenter 1992:§H2617). God’s steadfast love is seen in the

New Covenant that He made with us through Jesus. In the opening verse of

Jeremiah 9:23-24, there are three key words: love, justice and righteousness. These

key terms describe noteworthy characteristics of God which tie in with the doctrine of

propitiation. Packer (2007:77) writes about Jesus’ motive of love, who “was

determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the divine

judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us

forgiveness, adoption and glory”. God had a plan to save humanity and He fulfilled

that plan through Jesus (Eph. 1:4). A plan that once was fulfilled meant permanent

and eternal reconciliation between God and man. Then that knowledge of utter

hopelessness without Jesus has an effect on a believer to inspire praise, joy and

worship. This response is seen in Psalm 33:1: “Shout for joy in the LORD, O you

righteous! Praise befits the upright”.

Joy is connected to worship or the act of worship. Snider (2009:218) believes that

Christian worship is directly linked to sacrifice. To remove, deny or diminish the key

areas of sacrifice and substitution is devastating to worship. I agree with this in light

of all the scripture that has been examined so far in this essay. Psalm 32, which is a

thanksgiving psalm, is a good example of penal-substitution directly arising from a

theology of sacrifice and substitution. Psalm 32 echoes the pattern of atonement in

23

verse 1 where the psalmist says, “Blessed is the one whose transgression is

forgiven, whose sin is covered”. New Testament Christians have been forgiven

because our sins have been covered by Jesus’ blood shed at the cross which echoes

the blood sprinkled on the cover of the mercy seat on the Day of Atonement. The

blessing spoken of in verse 1 is further explained in verse 10 by how believers

receive the “steadfast love of the Lord”. This love is further emphasised with the

juxtaposition of the wicked who will have many “sorrows”. A cross-reference to

Romans 2:9 relates the many sorrows which result from trials and tribulations. Trials

and tribulations result because of the wrath and fury of the Lord against sin and

sinners and this is qualified in the preceding verse (Rom. 2:8). Believers need no

longer fear God because His wrath is no longer against them (1 Jn. 4:18) which

results in thanksgiving. The psalmist expresses thanksgiving and says he is “glad”,

and that he can “rejoice”, and “shout for joy” (verse 11).

Summary and conclusion

A summary of the doctrine of propitiation is that in both the Old and New Testaments,

God has provided, and been the means, to deal with our sin. Jesus Christ, both fully

man and fully God, could be the perfect satisfaction for God’s wrath. Jesus’ humanity

meant that He was an equal substitute, and His divinity meant that He could stand a

chance to be sinless and conquer death. Jesus paid our penalty by dying in our

place. Jesus, as divine could with stand the full force of God’s wrath. God’s wrath

comes from His holy hatred of sin. Sin which brings guilt, shame and death to the

sinner must be judged because God is inherently righteous. As God is both judge

and justifier, the provision for our atonement means we are purified by cancelling our

sin through a substitute of blood sacrifice. Through the substitute of sacrifice our guilt

has been forgiven, the penalty for our sins been paid, Gods justice is met, and His

wrath appeased. All of this means we can be reconciled to God but only through

Jesus who was fully man and fully God. Our reconciliation is permanent because His

sacrifice and substitution for us was made once, for all. Without a penalty being paid

for our sin, God could never have been called just if He had merely forgiven us. But

because of God’s love for us, he sought our best interest, despite our wicked nature.

So God provided Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Redeemer – the perfect and eternal

sacrifice. God’s love and justice are reconciled, in Jesus. Not only is Jesus our

24

propitiation, but He took our guilt and shame as well with Him into the ‘wilderness’.

New Testament believers can worship God for who He is in truth, and give Him

praise, joy and adoration. Therefore, in my opinion, one of the strongest arguments

for propitiation as defined in this essay is an examination of the attributes of God.

God’s love is self-sufficient – He didn’t love us out of ourselves like the moral-

influence theory would claim but out of His own sinless nature. His love was not a

response to our behaviour but despite our behaviour. Now we can see that God’s

love is just, and His justice loving.

Works cited

Allman J 2015 July-September. ίλάσκεσθαι: to propitiate or expiate? Bibliotheca

sacra (172), 335-355. Retrieved November 20, 2015, from

http://www.ebscohost.com

Baker W & Carpenter E (eds) 1992. The complete wordstudy dictionary: Old

Testament (Word study series). Chattanooga, Tennessee: AMG Publishers.

Retrieved from E-sword Bible software: http://www.e-sword.net

Bushnell H 2012[1866]. The vicarious sacrifice: grounded in principles of universal

obligation. Miami, Florida: Hardpress Publishing.

Chalke S & Mann A 2003. The lost message of Jesus. Grand Raphids, Michigan:

Zondervan.

Currid J, Kiuchi N & Sklar J 2007. Introduction to Leviticus. In L. Dennis (ed), The

English standard version study Bible (pp. 211-256). Wheaton, Illinois:

Crossway Bibles.

daSilva DA 2004. An introduction to the New Testament: contexts, methods, and

ministry formation. Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Dodd CH 1931. Hilaskesthai: its cognates, derivatives, and synonyms, in the

Septuagint. Journal of theological studies, 32(128), 352-360. Retrieved

November 21, 2015, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23952615

Erickson MJ 1989. Christian theology (7th ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book

House.

25

Green J & Baker M 2011[2000]. Recovering the scandal of the cross: atonement in

New Testament and contemporary contexts (2nd ed.). Downer's Grove,

Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Grudem W 1994. Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Harris L, Gleason L & Waltke B (eds). 2003. Theological wordbook of the Old

Testament (New ed.). Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers.

Lewis G 2001. God, attributes of. In The evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed.,

pp. 1099-116). Michigan, Grand Raphids: Baker Academic.

MacArthur J 2005. The MacArthur Bible commentary. Retrieved from E-sword Bible

software: http://www.e-sword.net

Mayhue R 2009. The scriptural necessity of Christ's penal-substitution. The master's

seminary journal, 20(2), 139-148. Retrieved November 28, 2015, from

http://www.ebscohost.com

Milgrom J 1991[1923]. Leviticus 1-16: a new translation with introduction and

commentary (The anchor Bible commentaries). (F. Albright, & D. Freedman,

eds.) Broadway, New York: Bantam Doubleday Publishing Group. Electronic

edition: Bookzz: http://www.bookzz.org

Moo D 1996. The epistle to the Romans (The new international commentary on the

New Testament). (N. Stonehouse, B. F, & F. Gordan, eds.) Grand Rapids,

Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Morris L 1998[1988]. The epistle to the Romans (The pillar New Testament

commentary). (D. Carson, ed.) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Willian B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company. Retrieved from Bookzz: http://www.bookzz.org

________2001. Atonement. In W. Elwell (ed.), The evangelical dictionary of theology

(2nd ed., pp. 271-272). Michigan, Grand Raphids: Baker Academic.

________2001. Propitiation. In W. Elwell (ed.), The evangelical dictionary of theology

(2nd ed., pp. 2139-2140). Michigan, Grand Raphids: Baker Academic.

________2001. Theories of atonement. In W. Elwell (ed.), The evangelical dictionary

of theology (2nd ed., pp. 277-283). Michigan, Grand Raphids: Baker

Academic.

Motyer J 2001. Day of atonement. In W. Elwell (ed.), The evangelical dictionary of

theology (2nd ed., pp. 272-273). Michigan, Grand Raphids: Baker Academic.

26

Neff D 2008. Your atonement is too small. Christianity today, 69-71. Retrieved

December 05, 2015, from http://ebschohost.com

Nicole RR 1955. C. H. Dodd and the doctrine of propitiation. Westminster theological

journal (17), 117-157. Retrieved November 20, 2015, from

http://ebscohost.com

Packer JI & Dever M 2007. In my place condemned He stood: celebrating the glory

of atonement. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway books.

Robinson W 2001. Wrath of God. In W. Elwell (ed.), The evangelical dictionary of

theology (2nd ed., pp. 2888-2889). Grand raphids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Schreiner T 2007. Introduction to Romans. In L. Dennis (ed.), The English standard

version study Bible (pp. 2157-2185). Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles.

Smith K 2008. Academic writing and theological research: a guide for students.

Johannesburg: South African Theological Seminary Press.

Snider A 2009. Worthy is the lamb that was slain: Penal-substitution and Christian

worship. The master's seminary journal, 20(2), 215-230. Retrieved November

28, 2015, from http://www.ebscohost.com

Sprinkle JM 2000. The rationale of the laws of clean and unclean in the Old

Testament. Journal of the evangelical theological society, 43(4), 637-657.

Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.ebscohost.com

Stephens J 1992. Ideology in children's fiction and literature. Singapore: Longman.

van Gemeren W 2001. Offerings and tithes. In W. Elwell (ed.), The evangelical

dictionary of theology (2nd ed., pp. 1901-1910). Grand Raphids, Michigan:

Baker Academic.

Vlach M 2009. Penal-substitution in church history. The master's seminary journal,

20(2), 199-214. Retrieved November 28, 2015, from

http://www.ebscohost.com

Washer PD 2011. The one true God: a biblical study of the doctrine of God.

CreateSpace independent publishing platform. Retrieved from Kindle store:

http://www.amazon.com

________2012. Ten indictments against the modern church. Chapel library.

Retrieved from Kindle store: http://www.amazon.com

Zodhiates S (ed.) 1993. The complete wordstudy dictionary: New Testament (Word

study series) (Reissue ed.). Chattanooga, Tennessee: AMG publishers.

27

28