Expiation and Propitiation, Doctrines
Standing
Concerns Point in Dispute
Currently States Whether the hilask- word group in the New Testament means the removal of sin or the turning aside of divine wrath
According To Christianity
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2005) sets out the camps on whether the hilask- word group in the New Testament means the removal of sin or the turning aside of divine wrath. C. H. Dodd argued in the 1930s, examining Septuagint usage where the same word group renders the Hebrew kipper and takes sins, persons or holy places as its grammatical object rather than God, that the New Testament sense is expiation, and that reading God as the object imports a pagan idea of appeasement foreign to the text. Leon Morris replied, examining the same New Testament passages, that divine wrath is a real and frequent subject in both testaments, that the argument of Romans introduces the passage by way of wrath specifically, and that removing propitiation removes something the text itself supplies. A third reading takes hilasterion in Romans as the kapporeth, the cover of the ark from the Septuagint's own translation choice, so that Christ is the place where atonement is made rather than its agent or its object; William Tyndale and Martin Luther both followed this third reading in their own translations. Nothing in the Greek settles the question on philology alone, and the English word a translator chooses tends to follow the doctrine already held rather than determine it.
Source The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd revised edition, F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (eds.)