The Propitiation/Expiation Debate

[Arial]

The debate is over the Greek word hilas and whether it should ever be translated "propitiate" but instead be translated "expiate". Expiate means the removal of sins, while propitiate means satisfaction of wrath.

C.H. Dodd argued for expiation only and is the most influential figure behind the push to exclude propitiation. He argued that hilas words mean the removal of sin, not satisfaction of wrath.

“The conception of propitiation is wholly foreign to the biblical conception of God.”
— C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (1935)

“ἱλάσκεσθαι means not ‘to propitiate’ but ‘to expiate,’ that is, to remove sin.”
— C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments

Dodd believed propitiation implied pagan appeasement and therefore must be rejected.

If you agree: why?
If you disagree: why?

Put forth theological arguments.

 

[Carbon]

The debate is over the Greek word hilas and whether it should ever be translated "propitiate" but instead be translated "expiate". Expiate means the removal of sins, while propitiate means satisfaction of wrath.

C.H. Dodd argued for expiation only and is the most influential figure behind the push to exclude propitiation. He argued that hilas words mean the removal of sin, not satisfaction of wrath.

“The conception of propitiation is wholly foreign to the biblical conception of God.”
— C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (1935)

“ἱλάσκεσθαι means not ‘to propitiate’ but ‘to expiate,’ that is, to remove sin.”
— C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments

Dodd believed propitiation implied pagan appeasement and therefore must be rejected.

If you agree: why?
If you disagree: why?

Put forth theological arguments.

I believe it is just the liberals who separate the word. So, from my understanding there is no expiate. They both mean the same.

 

[Arial]

I believe it is just the liberals who separate the word. So, from my understanding there is no expiate. They both mean the same.

If I may elaborate. The correct translation would be propitiate as the contexts in which it appears are dealing with the wrath of God. It is because of the propitiating work of Christ on the cross that sins can be expiated. And the only way.

 

[Arial]

“The conception of propitiation is wholly foreign to the biblical conception of God.”
— C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (1935)

This suggests to me that Dodd was imposing his own preferred view of God onto the translative work.

 

[brightfame52]

. It is because of the propitiating work of Christ on the cross that sins can be expiated. And the only way.

Is it can be expiated or actually is expiated ?

 

[Arial]

Is it can be expiated or actually is expiated ?

The believer's sin is actually propitiated by the work of Christ. It satisfies God's just wrath against our (the believer) sin through his substitution for us and his paying the ransom price. The sin is removed (expiated) because God's wrath has been propitiated. Christ bore it himself on his body, becoming the blood of propitiation. The sacrifice. It is Temple language---what the old temple system represented.

 

[brightfame52]

The believer's sin is actually propitiated by the work of Christ.

Was it b4 they believed?

. It satisfies God's just wrath against our (the believer) sin through his substitution for us and his paying the ransom price. The sin is removed (expiated) because God's wrath has been propitiated.

Was it a true fact b4 the believed?

 

[Arial]

Was it b4 they believed?

Jesus did the work before they believed. His work was not applied to them until they did believe.

Was it a true fact b4 the believed?

Of course. But they were born in Adam just like everyone else and in need of rescuing. They had to be born again by the Spirit in order to enter the kingdom.

Don't change the subject

 

[brightfame52]

Jesus did the work before they believed. His work was not applied to them until they did believe.

So why wasnt it effectual for them b4 they believed, or why wasn't
it applied to them b4 they believed? Wasn't God satisfied with what Christ did for them b4 they believed?

Of course. But they were born in Adam just like everyone else and in need of rescuing.

So did God hold them guilty for what they were in adam, sinners even after Christ satisfied for all their sins and sinfulness in adam and themselves?

 

[Arial]

So why wasnt it effectual for them b4 they believed, or why wasn't
it applied to them b4 they believed? Wasn't God satisfied with what Christ did for them b4 they believed?

Because we are saved through faith, not osmosis. Faith is the means. The subject is the debate between propitiation/expiation. Not how or when we were saved. You are still trying to hijack the thread.

So did God hold them guilty for what they were in adam, sinners even after Christ satisfied for all their sins and sinfulness in adam and themselves?

Yes. Because they are guilty. The subject is the debate between propitiation/expiation. You are trying to hijack the thread.

 

[John Bauer]

I believe it is just the liberals who separate the word. So, from my understanding there is no expiate. They both mean the same.

From my understanding, both propitiate and expiate are intended. The problem is that ἱλασμός (hilasmos) carries a semantic range that includes both the removal of our sin and guilt (expiation) and the turning away of divine wrath (propitiation). Koine Greek can hold those together in a single term; Modern English cannot. That is why this controversy exists: Translators and theologians debate which English gloss best captures the term in a given context.