Monday, April 13, 2009
The Use of "Propitiation"
Here is a thought provoking post by Rick Mansfield on the use of the word "propitiation" in English Bibles. Today some people judge the accuracy and usefulness of Bible versions based on the presence or absence of this unusual English word. Without a doubt is it very important to understand and to explain to modern audiences the meaning of the Greek word ἱλαστήριον but the oft repeated mantra that the word "propitiation" must be used in the English Bible to accurately represent what God is doing in Christ is perhaps overblown. Whichever way you look at it many words are required to explain the Gospel properly. And today it is not enough to simply parrot what others have said about the necessary use of "propitiation" as if the word itself explains the text. Theology should open up the text not obscure it with fancy words that only pastor-scholars can understand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I think you are attacking a straw man here. Most people who subscribe to the "oft repeated mantra" are looking for a translation that conveys the idea of appeasing God's wrath rather than looking specifically for the word "propitiation". And no one from what I have seen has ever expressed anything close to the idea that "the word itself explains the text".
I would agree with you that the word does not need to appear in a translation - if a translation had yet come up with a good synonomous alternative. And none that I have read so far have (but I'm not very well read). "sacrifice of atonement" sure doesn't cut it. The alternatives seem to need just as much explanation, so why not use the original word and explain it?
Paul, I'm not really attacking anything, I'm merely pointing out that whatever terms are used in English the underlying Greek word must still be explained in terms of the removal of God's wrath and the forgiveness of our sins. No one word does this adequately in English without more detailed explanation.
I think the point is that there is no such thing as an original word in English and so versions that do not use it require as much explanation as those who do. Maybe the solution is to find a more universally accepted way to express the meaning of the biblical word in modern English. What I am really concerned about is accurately conveying the meaning of ἱλαστήριον to modern readers of the English Bible. Maybe that is not possible but I think it is worth a try.
Part of my point--which I think you get Kirk, but I fear may be missed by your readers--is that propitiation doesn't communicate ἱλαστήριον for the AVERAGE Bible reader any better than alternatives. This is not really even an English word. It was simply swiped out of the Vulgate because the KJV translators were unable to decide how to communicate ἱλαστήριον in English. But because propitiation has been used for the last 400 years, now suddenly it takes on sacred status with some adherents to the KJV and its descendants.
Last night, I was teaching my IWU college students and often during our devotional, I simply condense what I've taught the previous Sunday. So last night, I was reading from Matt 28. To make sure the importance of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection was presented, I asked my students why Jesus had to die on the cross.
Keep in mind that this was not a group of students engaged in a religion major, but rather these happened to all be business students. Some were Christian, some were not; some go to church, some do not.
In answer to my question, NOT ONE student said "Jesus was the propitiation for my sins."
But two or three said, "Jesus was the sacrifice for my sins." This they get, even without the use of the word propitiation.
To truly explain ἱλαστήριον requires a teaching segment no matter what. But when I teach writing classes, I tell my students that good writing does not depend upon jargon (sorry, but propitiation IS theological jargon to the AVERAGE reader), and good writing doesn't do anything to make the reader "stumble" over words. The same can be said of good translations.
In other words, it's one thing to stop and reflect on the fact that Jesus died for my sins. But it's something totally different to use vocabulary that the average reader is going to stumble over and walk away saying "I don't know what that means." Some may look it up, but most will not.
More will understand "Jesus was the atoning sacrifice for my sins" than will understand "Jesus was the propitiation for my sins." A good teacher can use either wording to explain the underlying meaning of ἱλαστήριον and what Jesus did for us on the cross.
Thanks for your original post and for your comment here. I agree with what you are saying. The whole issue is so emotionally charged that people have difficulty appreciating what is being said. That is a shame because I think there are better solutions than just sticking with a word that the average Bible reader does not understand. We don't need a new priesthood of pastor-scholars, even well-meaning ones, to interpret the text for us (even though I'm well aware of the need for pastors and teachers etc) rather we need a text that can be understood by those who read it. Surely there is a way forward that will preserve vital truths about God and his way of salvation and at the same time express that truth in contemporary English.
Kirk,
I am sorry if I misjudged you. Please forgive me.
Rick,
I certainly got it and I think you make a valid point worth thinking about.
However, I would say that there is a good reason for it gaining "sacred status" quite independent of the KJV crowd, and that is the watering down to outright denial of the wrath of God against sin.
Then I would ask where do you stop. Atonement, Justification, and Sanctification are words that the general modern day reader does not understand. Do we replace those?
I would correct you on one thing though. Propitiation is an English word now. It may not have been at the time but languages do change and co-opt words that come into use (rather too frequently these days). This may seem a pedantic point (and it is) but your statement that it is not really an English word seems rather weak.
Paul said, "However, I would say that there is a good reason for it gaining "sacred status" quite independent of the KJV crowd, and that is the watering down to outright denial of the wrath of God against sin."Paul, I'm not sure what the antecedent is for your use of it in the first part of your sentence above. If I have to guess, I would guess you're referring to the word propitiation.
If so, using a word or phrase other than propitiation doesn't water anything down. Propitiation merely a label or placeholder for the underlying concept that Paul was trying to communicate. And I would still agree with Morris that ἱλαστήριον means more than merely propitiation. If anything propitiation doesn't say enough.
You also said "Then I would ask where do you stop. Atonement, Justification, and Sanctification are words that the general modern day reader does not understand. Do we replace those?"Maybe, maybe not. The first word, atonement was coined by Tyndale because he couldn't find a better word in the English language. The other two are Latinizations that may or may not be useful. Ultimately, all of these are theological jargon. I know what they mean, you know what they mean, but does the average person understand what they mean?
Incidentally, atonement is in the NLT as well as justified, but perhaps not in the same number of occurrences as say the ESV. That doesn't mean the ESV is more accurate, though, if the NLT communicates the meaning just as clearly or more clearly.
The NLT does not use the word sanctify or sanctification though. Instead, it usually opts for some variation of "make holy" which is slightly better, although sometimes the idea of the holy will need explanation, too.
Finally, you said "I would correct you on one thing though. Propitiation is an English word now. It may not have been at the time but languages do change and co-opt words that come into use (rather too frequently these days). This may seem a pedantic point (and it is) but your statement that it is not really an English word seems rather weak."Fair enough. It's an English word in our dictionaries now rooted in what is essentially a Latinization that the average person is not going to understand regardless. It's theological jargon in the end. And that's quite different from Paul's original use of ἱλαστήριον. He wasn't using jargon, but rather a word that any of his hearers would have been familiar with. Those with a pagan Greek background would have known it from their sacrificial ceremonies. Those who had some background with the LXX would have known it as the word used for the mercy seat.
Yet when the English word propitiation is thrown around in our churches today, very few understand what that means (and most even mispronounce it, vocalizing the t, which is silent). Thus we've just created an extra barrier that WAS NOT there for most when Paul used the word ἱλαστήριον.
Rick,
I am not sure you should use the term "antecedent" :)
More seriously I don't think we are disagreeing that much.
With regard to my use of the word "it", yes you are correct I was referring to "propitiation". In responding to that you didn't say anything I disagreed with. In my very first post I stated:
a translation that conveys the idea of appeasing God's wrath rather than looking specifically for the word "propitiation"Which would seem to agree with your contention. In my second post I just wanted to suggest that there is more to it than adherence to the KJV as you seemed to suggest.
We were having the internet updated at the seminary yesterday so I was unable to post to the blog. Thanks for all of your comments. Paul, I understand that we are dealing with important issues here and great care is required. I appreciate your concern for truth. Rick, your material is great and gets at something that I think needs correcting. I think it is so important that those of us who are teaching or working with congregation become skilled at communicating the gospel in a way that average people can understand. The level of confusion that exists among those who considered themselves "well-taught" is staggering let alone the confusion that exists outside of churches among people who know nothing of relevant biblical exposition. Scholars and theological hobbyists are often too far removed from where people are living including those who engage in evangelistic forays every once in a while. Anyway, thanks everyone. There is still a lot of work to do.
I dont see why some people have to be so harsh accusing you of attacking a straw man.
Kim, the theological issues surrounding propitiation are important and so people sometimes express themselves more forcefully than usual. I understand that and realize that it is part of debate and the give and take of strongly held positions. I think we all agree that truth is important and all of us need to remember to speak the truth in love.
Post a Comment