"Propitiation" in 1 John

Last time we looked at "propitiation" in Romans; the other New Testament writing that uses that word is 1 John, in the King James translation, where it is used in two places:

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

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

Why exactly do we care about the original meaning of the word? Well, it has been a key part of many peoples' understanding of God, and of Christ's work. And when people talk about what Christ has done, and how God sees us -- most of the words don't need much explanation, but "propitiation" does. In fact, when it came time for King James' translators to render it into English -- basically, they didn't render it in English. "Propitiation" is fairly close to the Latin word "propitiatio" that was used in the old Latin Bibles, which had been in common use for over a millenium. As far as helping us understand what the author meant, it might as well have still been Greek. So back to the Greek we go, just to see how they used that word, and trace it from there. 

The original Greek word in 1 John is used only in those two places -- there is nowhere else in the New Testament that uses the same original word. As for the same word in the Old Testament, it was used only once in the Septuagint (LXX) Greek translation, which is usually rendered into English something like this:

But there is forgiveness with you, therefore you are feared. (Psalm 130:4 according to KJV/AV chapters and verses; different chapter/verse numbers apply to this passage in the LXX)

So how do we trace its meaning and its usage back in that day? In the original writers' day, did "propitiation" have anything to do with our modern theological meaning of "appeasing wrath" or "satisfying justice"?

One way to build our understanding is by looking at related words in the same family of words. Here is the Greek word in English characters, along with some words in the same word family:

hilasmos - the word in question: wrath appeasement? satisfying justice? forgiveness?
hilasterion - the word we saw in the last post: mercy seat or atonement cover
hilaros - cheerful, willing, prompt to do something, joyous

For another perspective, we could look at how the early church translated it into Latin: that should reflect how the early church understood the original meaning. But here we come right back to our "English" word propitiation, or propitiatio in Latin. Does it seem like we're running in circles? King James' translators basically left that one in Latin, and later theologians have followed suit, and so going to the Latin translation didn't help us much. But here, when we check the word family, we have a related word that is nearly familiar:

propitius: (Latin) favorable, gracious

That one has a directly-derived English word:

propitious: (English) favorably disposed, benevolent; being of good omen, auspicious; tending to favor; advantageous.

The related words that I can find seem to be about goodwill and forgiveness.

Q. How does "propitious" mean "benevolent" and "propitiate" mean "to appease wrath"?
A. I'm not convinced that it does -- or that it did, when it was originally written.

Or as John was saying:

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

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

According to John, propitiation was something done out of love rather than wrath. (I am not here questioning whether God is angry with sin; I'm questioning whether that's what the word "propitiation" is talking about.) If the related words tend to be about benevolence and goodwill, and the context states it is an act of love, and two different ancient translations picked words related to forgiveness or benevolence for it -- then maybe it means something more along the lines of forgiveness, mercy, benevolence, and grace. If that proved more accurate, then we would get renderings more like: 

And he is the mercy for our sins, not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the grace for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

I know there is more study to be done -- and there may be better English words to use -- but I wonder very much if this is more in keeping with what the original word meant.

"Propitiation" in Romans (You keep using that word ...)

"Propitiation" is a word that we see only in theological writings. In the King James Bible (AV), it occurs only three times: twice in 1 John, and once in Romans. Those rarely-used words can be a challenge for translators and dictionaries alike. The low use creates a risk that we will misunderstand: there isn't much basis for comparison to see how the word is generally used. Our dictionaries reflect meanings based on the common use: the theological use of "propitiation" works out to "appeasing wrath". But is that what Paul was talking about?

Let's take the case of the one passage in Romans translated with "propitiation" in the AV:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past ... (Romans 3:23-25)

Another widely-used translation, the NIV, has that "propitiation" part as:

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood

There is also a footnote in the NIV with an alternate reading of:

the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin. 

It's an interesting footnote, once you consider that the word "wrath" doesn't actually appear anywhere in the received text of that passage; neither does "turning aside wrath". That's a theological theory being read into the text based on assumptions about what "propitiation" is. The footnote may be trying to bring light to an obscure word in the text, but did they bring light to it, or further obscure it?

So if there are three places that the New Testament uses the word "propitiation", why look at that one passage in particular? Because it uses a different word than the other two in the original Greek. The passage in Romans uses a Greek word that is only used twice in the New Testament: there, and in Hebrews 9:5:

And over it, the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercyseat (AV)

Or in another translation:

Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. (NIV)

That's quite a difference in translation: a propitiation, a sacrifice of atonement, one who would turn aside wrath taking away sin ... or the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant.

So what does that word typically mean? Although the New Testament only uses the word twice, we do have more than just those two uses for reference. The Hebrews had translated the Old Testament into Greek. We still have the text of the Septuagint, or the LXX, translation. And the Greek word that Paul used in Romans 3 is the normal word for the "mercy seat" or "atonement cover" of the Ark of the Covenant. You can check that by reading the Yom Kippur section of Leviticus in Greek, where the Greek word in question (hilasterion) is the word used for the mercy seat, or the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. In the Jewish usage of that day, that was the word in use for that specific place and object.

So Paul uses a word that is about Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. He links Christ to the Ark of the Covenant, to the one time a year that the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies and the presence of God. He links Christ to the one place on earth where someone could encounter the direct presence of God in the full glory of holiness. And specifically he links Christ to the "mercy seat" or "atonement cover".

And yet the Day of Atonement -- to read the ancient statutes of the Torah -- was focused on repentance and purification. And again, to read the New Testament letter to the Hebrews, the idea of the mercy seat is cleansing and purification. "Appeasing wrath" wasn't the purpose of the Day of Atonement, and it wasn't the idea in mind when they talked about the mercy seat. So it's really doubtful that Paul had appeasing wrath in mind when he used that word. With the Day of Atonement passages in mind, it seems more likely that he was alluding to the cleansing and purification that were the goal during the one time a year when the high priest approached the mercy seat.

For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the LORD. (Leviticus 16:30)

What would lead someone to focus on God's "wrath"?

In the Bible, "wrath" doesn't come up as often as "love" or "bless". So why, in some churches or denominations, does wrath have such a prominent place in preaching or theology? Why do some ministers feel as if they haven't presented the good news unless they have described God's wrath?

It turns out that talk of "wrath" is not evenly distributed in the writings of the Bible. The two books of Revelation and Romans account for roughly half of all the "wrath" talk in the New Testament. So the more that someone favors those books over the others, the more their version of the gospel will over-focus on wrath, compared to an understanding based on the New Testament as a whole. It follows that it's a risk of starting with the book of Romans: it easily leads to an over-emphasis on wrath, since that one book contains a focus on wrath that is out of proportion to the New Testament as a whole. The same could be said of Revelation.

What is the right emphasis to give it? We could take our lead from the New Testament as a whole, if the goal is to be consistent with the New Testament as a whole. Or some might contend that it is best to keep it in the same proportion as in the gospels. (That would be a small place.) But as for the extremes -- whether denying the existence of God's wrath or making it a constant major focus -- I don't see how either of those is consistent with the Bible. If we want to be thoroughly Biblical, it is not enough for a thought to be found in the Bible; we also need to gauge its relative importance in the same way.

Are there kinds of prayers that God never answers?

Lately I've been thinking about prayer, and specifically about the kind of prayer in which we ask God to help us with something specific. Are there kinds of requests that God never grants? I'm trying to think of a Biblical basis on which we would know the answer to that, and I think the main basis we have is the nature of God.

When two of Jesus' disciples suggested calling down fire from heaven on certain sinners, Jesus said no. It is similar to the time when Sarah, Abraham's wife, asked for God's judgment on Abraham. The ancients noted that Sarah died first, and saw that as a caution that whoever called down judgment would be judged first. (I wonder whether Jesus' first listeners would have thought of Abraham and Sarah that when Jesus taught, "Judge not, lest you be judged.")

I think most Christians do not pray to win the lottery, and maybe not for sports team victories, since that is seen nearly as an insult to the holiness of prayer. Back in my student days, I remember that there was a kind of prayer etiquette among Christian students about what we might pray for concerning tests: we would pray for calmness or focus, but not for an undeserved score.

Any thoughts on what kinds of requests God would not grant just on principle?

"Slut-shaming" versus virgin-vilifying

Lots of people argue by slogan these days. There is a slogan now being used that way, "slut-shaming", and they say it like it's a bad thing for a "slut" to be ashamed. Granted, I wouldn't choose the word "slut" -- it's harsh and insulting and communicates nothing but contempt. So I wouldn't introduce such a word into the conversation myself, and will take this opportunity to say some words that are more accurate: foolish, irresponsible, using and being used, selling your future short. The feminists see this as an issue -- that men are not called to account for the exact same bad behavior -- then conclude that therefore women should behave just as badly.

Many feminists are genuinely trying to take a stand for fairness; but I wonder sometimes whether they realize that they're being played. Would it bother them to realize that "feminism" has become a tool by which the men play the women to get what they want? And the feminists are defining "success" in terms of "doing what men are doing" -- as if what men are doing is automatically smart or right or desirable. Why did that assumption pass unchallenged, especially among feminists? Does an "empowered woman" want to be a copycat of the men?

Women have traditionally been held to higher moral standards -- at least when it comes to sex -- because we're the ones who suffer the consequences of idiocy or short-sightedness. We're the ones who face the "choice" of aborting our children or raising them alone, often in hardship. The stakes of the game are far higher for us, so we were expected to play smarter.Why aren't men ashamed of lying their way into a woman's bedroom? Good question, but that doesn't make it smart for us to give them a free pass and condone it. And make no mistake, the men have played the feminist movement so that now they have women standing up for the "right" to play the game the way that men want them to.

Except conscience is a tricky thing. If, deep down, we know we have been irresponsible with our lives, our bodies, our hearts, our emotional well-being, possibly even our futures or our potential children's future -- our consciences demand that we notice. The "feminization of poverty" -- the fact that the poor are more and more likely to be women and children -- is directly because we have stopped playing smart, and started defining "success" as "imitating men at their worst". And we could be a little smarter. This is an age where people are security conscious. People wouldn't dream of giving out their ATM pin to someone they just met, or having their password that's something ridiculously easy to guess. I would suggest that most women need to change the password to their pants. "I love you" is just too easy to guess. It's a sure way to get lied to and played.

As for virgin-vilifying, it has become a recurring action in pop culture. In The Breakfast Club, there's a scene in which the most disreputable character continually insinuates that there is something wrong with anyone who isn't sleeping around. And in that conversation, it looks as though he's the only one who may be sleeping around -- but the others allow themselves to be treated as if their patience or self-control -- or waiting for the right moment -- is somehow shameful. On The Simpsons, there is an episode in which we learn that Principal Skinner is a virgin -- and the town reacts in shock and disgust as if something was badly wrong with waiting for the right person, the right moment, the right relationship, or even marriage. There have even been some feature-length movies that have as their premise that there is something wrong with you if you are past a certain age and still a virgin. It was entertaining to see this virgin-vilifying turned on its head in the movie Easy A, where the main character helped other peoples' reputations -- that is, helped the reputation of vilified virgins -- by claiming to have slept with them.

On this particular topic, the feminist movement reminds me of a scene from the play Guys and Dolls in which Adelaide sings, "Take Back Your Mink". The lyrics are all about how powerful she is and how she is taking a stand and won't be played by the men any longer -- but the actions are all about her undressing herself for men's entertainment in a strip club. When it comes to the topic of "slut-shaming", the feminist movement is taking the role of Adelaide, singing about how sleeping around is "empowerment" while the men hoot and applaud, and maybe not realizing that was exactly what the men wanted them to do, and that the men are quite firmly in control of that situation.

Why it is sometimes necessary to refer to the Old Testament as "Old"

I've written before about the words we use to talk about the Old Testament. And currently there is something of a trend to call the Old Testament either the Tanakh or the Hebrew Bible. I won't repeat the earlier post, but I did want to add: it is sometimes important for us as Christians to be able to affirm that the Old Testament is, in fact, old. We no longer look for a human priest to make animal sacrifices, or for animal blood to be thrown on an altar. We Christians can be thankful that we never again desire animal sacrifices: they are old, their day has gone, and we do not want their return. We no longer say that some food can make a person unclean -- because we affirm that what defiles a person is what comes from their heart. We no longer say, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" as did the Torah, and the code of Hammurabi before it.

There are times when we may prefer to call the Old Testament by the name Tanakh. But there are times when it is necessary to affirm that we see it as old: the days of blood sacrifice are gone, the days of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" are gone, the days of a nation being asked to eradicate its neighbors for their religious beliefs are gone. When we call it the "Old Testament" we proclaim our belief that those days are gone. The fact that those days are gone is part of the good news.

"If those things are part of your holy book, then how can you say they are not part of your religion?" Because they are old: the old has gone and the new has come.

Is human nature basically good or totally depraved?

It has been awhile since I posted on the "controversies" series. With this year's busy season at work beginning to wind down, I'm hoping that I might develop that series a little further this fall and winter. One question I did not include on my original list, but keeps coming up, is the question of human nature. In this post I don't mean to develop the whole argument, just to show the opposite ends of the spectrum of views and ask: Do any of you all have an opinion on the topic, and if so: what are the key things on which you build that view?

The "basically good" view

Here are some important questions posed by the "basically good" camp:

• If God is creator, and God is good, how can he have created what is evil? 
• If God proclaimed creation to be "very good in every way", how can we be evil? 
• If God created us in his image, and he is good and holy, how can we (in his image) be evil? 

The "totally depraved" view

Here are some important questions posed by the "totally depraved" camp at the opposite end of the spectrum: 

• If we are basically good, then why do we need to be "born again" or take part in a new creation? 
• If we are basically good, why have so many people done so many things that are not good? 
• If we are basically good, then why does the Bible insist in a number of places that we have serious problems -- to say the least -- with sin, wickedness, and deceit?

Finding the truth

A wise man (my son Stephen) once said, "Truth does not equal the average of opinions." Just because there are opposite views, it does not necessarily follow that a reasonable person should hold a view that is the average of the two. Though it is typical to find that each side considers things important that the other side does not account for.

So I find myself curious to hear more of the debate, and wondered: Do any of you all have an opinion on the topic? What are the key things on which you build that view? My current thoughts are based on the nature of good and evil (which would be a topic for some other post), but I'm keen to find out about other perspectives.