Talk:Propitiation

Article needs work
I've been skimming the article for ideas and I've noticed quite a few problems with it. Several parts seem to contain original research, e.g. "for example hilastheti in Luke 18:13, where there is no third party between the tax collector and God, and yet there is ‘propitiation’. (Interestingly, the tax collector “beats his own breast”, as an outward sign of his repentance and so, perhaps, he propitiates himself: bearing wrath (his own) and being made right (“dedikaiomenos”) by God." This seems like one of the better examples of original research to me. Another point apart for the original research is one of neutrality and veracity. Neutrality first. It seems as if the article is claiming that propitiation is an inadequate translation; "as Barth (and later Moltmann) showed, propitiation and expiation are false categories when applied to the triune God."  While it is one thing to state what the consensus (ugh, is that even possible?) of modern scholarships states about propitiation, the article seems to be making broad claims. Am I reading this correctly? On veracity. This one is more difficult for me to communicate my objection and reasoning in regards to the article. The article, especially in the propitiation and expiation section, seems to conflate several different theologian's positions and may even be equivocating different views of propitiation. It may be that the author(s) is just attempting to be concise. I am not sure though. It is, however, going to require some research, so I may come back and correct it later if no one else does. (UTC)ahchoo4u March 30, 2012 12:34

I think that it also needs work on its readability. Take the first couple of sentences. It is not clear at all that there is a difference between expiation and propitiation. Also the "Concretely it means the lid..." sentence is rather badly expressed. I came to  the  article  looking for a discussion of  the differences between expiation and propitiation, whilst reading K.I. Packer's "Knowing God". I left none the wiser. 2A00:23C8:A04:4900:1538:63F0:3EA2:9CE1 (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Othodoxy
It should be noted that Orthodox don't believe the Atonement was a propitiation. It would be good if the article reflected this, unfortunately I'm not yet learned enough to understand why they don't or what they mean by it. --Ephilei (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Propitiation in Christian theology
The article currently talks of the 'fulfilment of the wrath of God' as an emotional response as well as a moral one. Can someone who knows a lot about the attributes of God, so to speak, and whether his anger can in any way be described as "emotional" in the way we think of it, confirm that this is accurate? I'm not sure that it is correct to talk of God being emotionally angry myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.99 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IMPOSSIBLE for kapporeth to be translated as "atone" because atonement was only coined around 1510 AD
173.206.76.42 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The article currently reads: but that in the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) that kapporeth (Hebrew for "atone") is often translated with words that mean "to cleanse or remove" ~ & my edit was quickly deleted. :-)

IMPOSSIBLE for hilasmos to be translated as "atonement" in the 132 BC Septuagint -- "atonement" minted 1510 AD
173.206.76.42 (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The article currently reads: ''Another Greek word, hilasmos, is used for Christ as our propitiation. 1 John 2:2; 4:10, and for "atonement" in the Septuagint (Leviticus 25:9).''

IMPOSSIBLE that the OT contained the phrase "﻿Day of Atonement"
173.206.76.42 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The article currently reads: The mercy seat was sprinkled with atoning blood on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:14)

The Book of Leviticus was written between 1440 & 1400 BC

Atonement -- AS A LABEL -- was invented around 1510 AD.

More Facts:

- Greek Septuagint LXX Pentateuch (282 BC) = hemera exilasmou (Lev.23:27,28) doesn't = Day of Atonement

- Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 AD) = dies expiationum (Lev.23:27) / dies propitiationis (Lev.23:28)

- Some English translators (& many commentators) wrongly insert “Day of Atonement” into these ancient texts.

- The Apostles’ Creed (120-250 AD) / Nicene Creed (325 & 381) / Chalcedonian Creed (451) / Athanasian Creed (500) could not & do not mention the word atonement (for OLD or NEW Covenant).

- There are zero Greek words that = appeasement / atonement / expiation / propitiation / remission / reparation / satisfaction in the NT.

- The “Doctrine of Christ’s Atonement” label is NOT true-to-Scripture -- it’s a modern man-made marquee.

- The “Day of Atonement” label is also NOT true-to-history-or-Scripture -- it also is a modern man-made marquee.

Twinkle Abuse by ﻿Peter SamFan
173.206.4.13 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I provided ref links, fixed several references, deleted incorrect info (e.g. "other modern versions" translated as expiation), corrected atone with covering, corrected Day of Atonement with Yom kippur, posted verifiable, neutral, intelligent-summary info, all in good faith. We need to discuss reposting my deleted contributions, as per: "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle ..., should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."

Atonement / Expiation / Propitiation -- proposed additions
These are neutral, relevant, significant, verifiable, reader-empowering, perspective-balancing facts, & should be added to the article. Agreed? If not, why not?

Atonement / Expiation / Propitiation in original text

No occurrences in original OT Hebrew Scriptures, or in original NT Greek Scriptures. ~ Also, the word "Atonement" was invented around 1510 AD, so no occurrences in Greek Septuagint LXX Pentateuch (282 BC), or in Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 AD).

﻿Expiation in Latin Vulgate ~ Enter expiat* in VUL at https://www.blueletterbible.org/

36 OT occurrences ~ No NT occurrences

Propitiation in Latin Vulgate ~ Enter propit* in VUL at https://www.blueletterbible.org/

61 OT occurrences ~ 6 NT occurrences {Lk.18:13; Rom.3:25; Heb.8:12; 9:5; 1Jn.2:2; 4:10}

Plagerism & Bias ?
The article currently reads (& should be replaced with Easton's quote):

''In Romans 3:25 the NASB translates "propitiation" from the Greek word hilasterion. Concretely it specifically means the lid of The Ark of The Covenant. The only other occurrence of hilasterion in the NT is in Hebrews 9:5, where the NASB translates it as "mercy seat".''

Easton's Bible Dictionary reads:

''In Rom.3:25 and Heb.9:5 (A.V., "mercy-seat") the Greek word hilasterion is used. It is the word employed by the LXX. translators in Ex.25:17 and elsewhere as the equivalent for the Hebrew kapporeth, which means "covering," and is used of the lid of the ark of the covenant (Ex.25:21; 30:6). This Greek word (hilasterion) came to denote not only the mercy-seat or lid of the ark, but also propitation or reconciliation by blood.''

I love the NASB but the 4 related ﻿G2433/34/35/36 Bible words, trump the NASB translation of Rom.3:25.