Iii. Conclusion
c. ἱλασµóς
This word occurs twice, both times in the First Epistle of St. John, and on both occasions it occurs in an expression referring to Christ as ‘the propitiation for our sins’. The first passage assures us that ‘if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins’ (1 Jn. 2 : 2). The second is concerned with the love of God, ‘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 Jn. 4 : 10). Here again objections have been raised to the traditional rendering, as by Dodd who says: ‘The common rendering “propitiation” is illegitimate here as elsewhere.‘380
The reasons alleged are those we have already noticed, namely that ἱλάσ
οµα
, etc., are thought to have evolved in the LXX a meaning strange to non-biblical Greek, and no new consideration is brought forward in connection with the Johannine passages. Indeed it is noticeable that there is a certain caution in Dodd’s approach for he says: ‘Here we have less confidence in appealing to LXX usage than in the case of Paul and Hebrews, for the Johannine Epistles are probably less influenced by the LXX than any other New Testament writings.’381 However, he notes that ḥaaṭṭā‘th is variously rendered ἱλασµóς and τò περὶ ἁµαρτίας and he thinks that ‘The Johannine expression looks like a combination of these >alternative translations’.382 On these, grounds he groups the Johannine usage with those previously considered and thinks the term means simply a cancelling of guilt and purification of the sinner. But Dodd has shown only that the Johannine passages link up with the LXX, and if our conclusion that in the LXX this word-group conveys the thought of propitiation is sound, then a similar meaning will be required here.
οµα, etc., are thought to have evolved in the LXX a meaning strange to non-biblical Greek, and no new consideration is brought forward in connection with the Johannine passages. Indeed it is noticeable that there is a certain caution in Dodd’s approach for he says: ‘Here we have less confidence in appealing to LXX usage than in the case of Paul and Hebrews, for the Johannine Epistles are probably less influenced by the LXX than any other New Testament writings.’381 However, he notes that ḥaaṭṭā‘th is variously rendered ἱλασµóς and τò περὶ ἁµαρτίας and he thinks that ‘The Johannine expression looks like a combination of these >alternative translations’.382 On these, grounds he groups the Johannine usage with those previously considered and thinks the term means simply a cancelling of guilt and purification of the sinner. But Dodd has shown only that the Johannine passages link up with the LXX, and if our conclusion that in the LXX this word-group conveys the thought of propitiation is sound, then a similar meaning will be required here.In support of this there are one or two considerations. The first of these is the context. Of the first of these sayings even Dodd can say, ‘in the immediate context it might seem possible that the sense of “propitiation” is in place’.383 The point is that Christ is said to be ‘an Advocate with the Father’, and if we sinners need an advocate with God, then obviously we are in no good case, our misdeeds prevail against us, we are about to feel the hostility of God to all that is sinful. Under these circumstances we may well speak of Christ turning away the wrath of God, and thus ἱλασµóς is a natural word in the context.
Again, in addition to the word from the ἱλάσοµα group we have a reference to Christ as ‘the righteous’, and a few verses earlier there is a mention of His blood (1 Jn. 1 : 7). In these things we may discern a striking coincidence with Romans 3 : 25, where the propitiation occurs in a passage which several times refers to God’s righteousness, and which says the propitiation is in Christ’s blood. As our examination of the Romans passage demonstrated, as we believe, that the thought of propitiation is to be discerned there, the coincidences of language suggest that this idea is to be found also in 1 John.
οµα group we have a reference to Christ as ‘the righteous’, and a few verses earlier there is a mention of His blood (1 Jn. 1 : 7). In these things we may discern a striking coincidence with Romans 3 : 25, where the propitiation occurs in a passage which several times refers to God’s righteousness, and which says the propitiation is in Christ’s blood. As our examination of the Romans passage demonstrated, as we believe, that the thought of propitiation is to be discerned there, the coincidences of language suggest that this idea is to be found also in 1 John.In 1 John 4 :10 if ἱλασµóς be given its usual meaning we have one of those resounding paradoxes which mean so much for the understanding of the Christian view of sacrifice. It is to God Himself that we owe the removal of God’s wrath (cf. Col. 1 : 21f. for a similar statement with regard to the removal of enmity), whereas, if the more colourless ‘expiation’ is understood, the verse is much less striking.
A further point is that the nature of the allusion is such as to stress the fact that Christ is the offering which turns away the wrath, rather than to draw attention to any activity in thus averting the wrath. This is well put by B. F. Westcott: ‘Christ is said to be the “propitiation” and not simply the “propitiator” (as He is called the “Saviour” iv. 14), in order to emphasise the thought that He is Himself the propitiatory offering as well as the priest (comp. Rom. iii. 25). A propitiator might make use of means of propitiation, outside himself. But Christ is our propitiation.‘384
In all this there is nothing to make us alter our previous conclusions with regard to the meaning of this word-group. There is no crude process of celestial bribery, but a word is chosen which reminds us of the very real wrath of God385 manifested against all unrighteousness, a wrath which we need no longer fear, for Christ is ‘the propitiation for our sins’.
A not unimportant consideration is that the ἱλάσοµα words were not understood by the early Christians as signifying expiation . Both 1 Clement and Hermas, for example, use the verb ἐξλάσοµα with the accusative of the Deity in the sense ‘propitiate’ 386 so that if the LXX translators and the New Testament writers evolved a new sense for the word-group it perished with them. But in view of the universal usage among pagan writers, early and late, in Philo and Josephus, and in such Christian writers as those mentioned, it is much better to understand the New Testament writers in the normal fashion as referring to propitiation and not expiation.
οµα words were not understood by the early Christians as signifying expiation . Both 1 Clement and Hermas, for example, use the verb ἐξλάσοµα with the accusative of the Deity in the sense ‘propitiate’ 386 so that if the LXX translators and the New Testament writers evolved a new sense for the word-group it perished with them. But in view of the universal usage among pagan writers, early and late, in Philo and Josephus, and in such Christian writers as those mentioned, it is much better to understand the New Testament writers in the normal fashion as referring to propitiation and not expiation.III. CONCLUSION
What are we to say of all this? Some theologians unhesitatingly reject the whole idea of the wrath of God and of propitiation as being unworthy of the Christian view of God. Thus N. Berdyaev can say: ‘The wrath of God described in the Bible is simply an exoteric motif reflecting the wrath of the Jewish people.‘387 Or again: ‘Anger in every shape and form is foreign to God, Whose mercy is infinite.‘388 Such citations could be multiplied almost indefinitely, for there are many modern writers to whom the concept of the wrath of God is anathema.
One must have a certain sympathy with such positions, for nothing can be more certain than that the Christian view of God is that He is love, and nothing can be held for one moment which interferes with the clear perception of this basic truth. Without it Christianity becomes meaningless. Nevertheless the fact must be faced that the Bible in both Old and New Testaments speaks often of God’s wrath.
Perhaps the difficulty arises because we are making a false antithesis between the divine wrath and the divine love. We are handicapped by the fact that we must necessarily use terms properly applicable to human affairs, and for us it is very difficult to be simultaneously wrathful and loving. But, upon analysis, this seems to be largely because our anger is such a selfish passion, usually involving a large element of irrationality together with a lack of self-control. Nevertheless, even in human affairs, such a thing as ‘righteous anger’ is not unknown when some, at least, of the more unworthy elements are absent, and we catch a glimpse of a fiery zeal for the right which may be perfectly compatible with pure love.
Those who object to the conception of the wrath of God should realize that what is meant is not some irrational passion bursting forth uncontrollably, but a burning zeal for the right coupled with a perfect hatred for everything that is evil. It may be that wrath is not a perfect word to describe such an attitude, but no better has been suggested, and we must refuse to accept alternatives which do not give expression to the truth in question. Perhaps there is a certain anthropomorphism involved in the use of the term wrath, but it must not be forgotten that, ‘A false anthropomorphism is to be laid to the charge not of those who maintain that there is, in the Biblical sense of the word, such a thing as the wrath of God. It is rather to be laid to the charge of those who encourage the idea that God is like an easy, good-natured, benevolent man.‘389 We sometimes find among men an affection which is untempered by a sterner side, and this we call not love but sentimentality. It is not such that the Bible thinks of when it speaks of the love of God, but rather of a love which is so jealous for the good of the loved one that it blazes out in fiery wrath against everything that is evil. D. M. Baillie gives expression to this when he speaks of God’s wrath as being ‘identical with the consuming fire of inexorable divine love in relation to our sins’.390
Now if there is such a divine hostility to evil it is obvious that something must be done about it if man, sinner as he is, is ever to be accepted before God. Sometimes Scripture directs attention to the cause of the hostility and speaks of sin as remitted or purged. But sometimes also it points us to the hostility itself, and speaks of its removal in terms of propitiation. The evidence that the Bible means what it says when it uses this term is so strong that, as we saw earlier, S. R. Driver can speak of propitiation as one of the three main categories used in the New Testament to interpret the death of Christ.391 From a slightly different point of view Denney says: ‘If the propitiatory death of Jesus is eliminated from the love of God, it might be unfair to say that the love of God is robbed of all meaning, but it is certainly robbed of its apostolic meaning.‘392 The writers of the New Testament know nothing of a love which does not react in the very strongest fashion against every form of sin.
It is the combination of God’s deep love for the sinner with His uncompromising reaction against sin which brings about what the Bible calls propitiation. Since God would not leave man to suffer all the consequences of his sin, Christ suffered, and as J. C. Lambert puts it, ‘while springing from the Divine love, the death of Christ is represented in the Epp. not less clearly as a propitiation
for sin ... any interpretation of the mass of NT evidence seems difficult and forced which does not recognize that, in the view of these writers, Christ’s death was really our death in a vicarious and propitiatory sense’.393 This statement stresses once more the fact that propitiation is understood as springing from the love of God. Among the heathen, propitiation was thought of as an activity whereby the worshipper was able himself to provide that which would induce a change of mind in the deity. In plain language he bribed his god to be favourable to him. When the term was taken over into the Bible these unworthy and crude ideas were abandoned, and only the central truth expressed by the term was retained, namely that propitiation signifies the averting of wrath by the offering of a gift. But in both Testaments the thought is plain that the gift which secures the propitiation is from God Himself.394 He provides the way whereby men may come to Him. Thus the use of the concept of propitiation witnesses to two great realities, the one, the reality and the seriousness of the divine reaction against sin, and the other, the reality and the greatness of the divine love which provided the gift which should avert the wrath from men.
Those who seek to reduce the concept of propitiation to a mere expiation do not, in general, face the questions which expiation raises, such as ‘Why should sin be expiated?’ ‘What would be the consequences to man if there were no expiation?’ ‘Would the hand of God be in those consequences?’ It seems evident on the scriptural view that if sin is not expiated, if men ‘die in their sins’, then they have the divine displeasure to face, and this is but another way of saying that the wrath of God abides upon them. It seems that expiation is necessary in order to avert the wrath of God, so that nothing seems to be gained by abandoning the concept of propitiation.
Then there is the question of the meaning to be given to expiation. As commonly used the term seems to signify the removal of sin or guilt, but neither of these is a thing which can be objectively removed. Expiation can be given an intelligible meaning only when we move into the realm of personal relations. Sin has altered the relations between God and man, and expiation cannot be understood apart from the effects of the expiatory act on these relations. Unless we are prepared to say that in expiation all that happens is a subjective change in man, it would seem that we are committed to the view that expiation has a Godward aspect so that God now treats the sinner differently from before. Instead of God’s severity the sinner experiences God’s grace, which is only another way of saying that propitiation has taken place. If we give expiation a fully personal meaning it seems then that we are brought back to propitiation; if we do not it is difficult to see how we are to understand the term. Certainly propitiation, when carefully safeguarded, is a more intelligible concept than an impersonal expiation.
If we are to retain the Christian conception of God with its insistence on the divine activity in the affairs of men, and the divine abhorrence of sin, it seems necessary to retain some such conception as propitiation. Certainly we must retain the idea of the wrath of God, for, as Edwyn Bevan has pointed out, the idea that God cannot be angry is neither Hebrew nor Christian, but something borrowed from Greek philosophy 395But not only is the Hebrew and Christian idea of a God who can be wrathful different from the Greek philosophic view. It is a superior idea. Granted that it contains an element of anthropomorphic imagery, it yet points to a reality within the divine being which gives point and force to moral sanctions.396
Then, too, unless we give a real content to the wrath of God, unless we hold that men really deserve to have God visit upon them the painful consequences of their wrongdoing, we empty God’s forgiveness of its meaning.397 For if there is no ill desert, God ought to overlook sin. We can think of forgiveness as something real only when we hold that sin has betrayed us into a situation where we deserve to have God inflict upon us the most serious consequences. When the logic of the situation demands that He should take action against the sinner, and He yet takes action for him, then and then alone can we speak of grace. But there is no room for grace if there is no suggestion of dire consequences merited by sin.
One final point is that the process of propitiation envisaged in the Bible is one which involves an element of substitution. In both Old and New Testaments the means of propitiation is the offering up of a gift, the gift of a life yielded up to death by God’s own appointment. The Scripture is clear that the wrath of God is visited upon sinners or else that the Son of God dies for them. Either sinners are punished for their misdoings or else there takes place what Hodgson calls ‘that self-punishment which combines the activities of punishing and forgiving’.398 Either we die or He dies. But ’God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us’ (Rom. 5 : 8).