Both nouns are used in different English versions of the New Testament to translate the same Greek word hilasterion depending on one's view of the nature of sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross, how it is that his death can bring about out reconciliation with God. Propitiation refers to the act of an offender by which he hopes to turn away the wrath of the person he has offended. Theologically, it is used of Jesus who, in his death on the cross, became "the propitiation for our sins" (1 Jn 2:2; 4:10, Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17, KJV, NASB, NKJ). Expiation is the act of making amends for a wrong committed, and is the word used in place of propitiation in modern translations such as the RSV and NEB. Other modern translations such as NIV and NRS skirt around the debate with words like "atonement" or "sacrifice of atonement".
Is the difference theologically important? Leon Morris is insistent that it is: he says (The Atonement. Its Meaning and Significance),
. . . Propitiation is a personal word; one propitiates a person. Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or a crime.
When we are speaking about Christ's atoning work it makes a great deal of difference which meaning we understand. If we speak of expiation our meaning is that there is an impersonal process by which the effects of sin is nullified. We may be ready to think of the process as a remedy for defilement, a means of forgiveness, or a sacrifice that takes sin away, but we resolutely refuse to see any reference to the wrath of God. But if we speak of propitiation we are thinking of a personal process. We are saying that God is angry when people sin and that, if they are to be forgiven, something must be done about that anger. We are saying further that the death of Christ is the means of removing the divine wrath from sinners. The issue is far from being superficial.
We may perhaps feel that 'propitiation' is not a good word. It is a long word, a word which most of us rarely use, which many of us do not understand, and which some of those who do readily confuse with 'appeasement'. It is natural that translators often feel that it should be replaced by something more intelligible. I go along with this, with the sole proviso that the essential meaning of the term must be preserved. My quarrel with almost all modern translations is that they do not retain the essential meaning, specifically, they adopt some rendering that glosses over the wrath of God. But this is a very important concept (as I shall try to show), and it cannot be ignored in any satisfying understanding of the work of Christ.
Further Reading:
Leon Morris, The Atonement. Its Meaning and Significance. Leicester/Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983. Esp. pp.151-176.
©ALBERITH
100319lch