What is Propitiation and is it really the heart of the gospel?

[DaveXR650]

J.I. Packer thought so. I always thought that it was definitely was. So I have two questions. Do most of you on here know what propitiation is? (And how would you define it?) And also, do you think that it is an essential of the faith or is it a peripheral issue? I would like to know if churches are teaching this nowadays, which are and which aren't. And I encourage quotes from others as well as scripture. I would especially like to hear from non-Calvinists, just because I already know what Calvinists will answer, but they can chime in too.

 

[DaveXR650]

There is an extra "was" in the second sentence. But regarding "propitiation", if you are one who believes that it is "averting God's anger by an offering", as a most basic definition, do you also believe that Packer was right or wrong when he said that:

"Has the word 'propitiation' any place in your Christianity? In the faith of the New Testament it is central".

Worse yet, he goes on and says "The love of God, the taking of human form by the son, the meaning of the cross, Christ's heavenly intercession, the way of salvation - are all to be explained in terms of it, and any explanation from which the thought of propitiation is missing will be incomplete, and indeed, actually misleading, by New Testament standards."

Now like I said, I had assumed this was common knowledge. I thought this before I ever heard of Packer, from my IFB days. His book, "Knowing God" is certainly not new and I guess a lot has happened since he gave this warning a paragraph later:
"In saying this we swim against the stream of much modern teaching and condemn at a stroke the views of a great number
of distinguished church leaders today, but we cannot help that." And he's not done. He goes on to say "And a gospel without propitiation at it's heart is another gospel than that which Paul preached".

So, where are you guys? Is Packer all wet in 2026? Or is he right?

 

[Ascetic X]

There you go again, quoting a theologian. That is why I posted the topic “Theology vs. the Bible”.

Who cares what JI Packer said?

In the 1960s/70s, he split with influential pastor Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who believed Packer was too lenient in his ecumenical approach and cancelled Packer’s involvement in the Puritan Conferences.

RC Sproul said faith alone was essential for justification, but Packer said it was only central.

In 1994, Packer was heavily criticized for signing the Evangelicals and Catholics Together ECT document, with opponents arguing he softened the distinction between Protestantism and Catholicism on salvation.

 

[DaveXR650]

There you go again, quoting a theologian. That is why I posted the topic “Theology vs. the Bible”.

Who cares what JI Packer said?

In the 1960s/70s, he split with influential pastor Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who believed Packer was too lenient in his ecumenical approach and cancelled Packer’s involvement in the Puritan Conferences.

Looks like you have been reading some theologians yourself. Good for you! So, do you think propitiation is the heart of the gospel?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Packer is right on the money! Of course he reminds us that "the best of men are men at best," but 'where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in the multitude of counselors there is safety' (Prov. 11:14). I expect you, @DaveXR650 , will have read his introduction to Owen's Death of Death. Excellent stuff!
A propitiation is a sacrifice that turns away wrath. Some translations have 'atoning sacrifice' which is OK, but not ideal. God's wrath against His people's sin is satisfied by the suffering and death of Christ. A wonderful, consoling and confidence building thought!

 

[atpollard]

I see “propitiation” as less a turning aside of wrath, and more a restoring of a relationship that was broken. More like the embrace of the Father at the return of the Prodigal Son that heals the relationship that the son broke.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I see “propitiation” as less a turning aside of wrath, and more a restoring of a relationship that was broken. More like the embrace of the Father at the return of the Prodigal Son that heals the relationship that the son broke.

I think we're both right. I will explain propitiation as it was explained to me many years ago. If you were to see some big rough, burly chap waliking along the road carrying a bunch of flowers, you might stop and ask him, "What are those flowers for?" If he was a Londoner he might reply, "They're a propitiation for the Missus." Now it all becomes clear. This fellow has upset his wife in some way and forfeited wifely smiles etc. So he goes to the florists and buys an expensive bunch of flowers hoping that they will propitiate her. The flowers are a sacrifice (of money) in order to turn away his wife's righteous anger at his behaviour, and of course, restore the broken relationship.
Now of course this man does not know if the flowers will indeed propitiate his wife; she might hold out for a slap-up meal. But we know that God is propitiated by the death of Christ because it was He who set Him forth as a propitiation (Romans 3:25).

 

[JonC]

Yes, "propitiation" (or "atoning sacrifice") IS at the heart of the gopel.

Why? NOT because JI Packer says so but because in 1 Jn. 2:2 God says that Jesus Himself is the Propitiation for the sins of the world.

He offered Himself as a sacrifice.
He was obedient to death, even the death on a Cross.

Why turn to men's words to argue your point when you have God's words.


The problem is many do not understand the word. I do not know why as it is not some theogical term but a real word.

"Propitiation" is not a word made up for the Bible. It is a real word with a real meaning. It was a English word chosen by some translators.

The word has been "propitiation" can also be translated expiation.

Here is the difference -

Expiation "to make ammeds or pay a penalty".

Example - Well, all I can do now is to carry out his wishes; that will be my expiation for my neglect. —Bram Stoker

Propiation is "the act of gaining favor or goodwill".

Example - she showed every possible desire to conciliate him, and there was an air of humble propitiation in all she did, such as I have seen pervade the bearing of a child towards a hard master. —Charles Dickens



The problem comes in when people exceed the definition to make it fit their ideas.

 

[JonC]

I see “propitiation” as less a turning aside of wrath, and more a restoring of a relationship that was broken. More like the embrace of the Father at the return of the Prodigal Son that heals the relationship that the son broke.

It is, by definition. It is "gaining favor", restoring a relationship.

 

[Van]

J.I. Packer thought so. I always thought that it was definitely was. So I have two questions. Do most of you on here know what propitiation is? (And how would you define it?) And also, do you think that it is an essential of the faith or is it a peripheral issue? I would like to know if churches are teaching this nowadays, which are and which aren't. And I encourage quotes from others as well as scripture. I would especially like to hear from non-Calvinists, just because I already know what Calvinists will answer, but they can chime in too.

Propitiation is an English word used to translated two different Greek words in the NASB. The Greek words refer to the place of reconciliation, which of course is spiritually within Christ, and the means of reconciliation, which of course was provided by Christ's substitutionary death on the cross.

 

[DaveXR650]

The problem comes in when people exceed the definition to make it fit their ideas.

Then be clear about your objection. Are you saying that what guys like Packer get wrong is that when "propitiation" is used in scripture as a propitiation of God's wrath due us because of our sin - that is what is meant by exceeding the definition?

 

[JonC]

Then be clear about your objection. Are you saying that what guys like Packer get wrong is that when "propitiation" is used in scripture as a propitiation of God's wrath due us because of our sin - that is what is meant by exceeding the definition?

No. If that were my objection I would have stated so.

Instead, rather than objecting I agreed with the OP. I just said that we do not have to go to Packer as God said that Jesus Himself is the Propitiation for the sins of the world.

My "exceeding the definition" of "propitiation" I was referring to the instances where people insert their understanding of how Jesus propitiates on our behalf in place of the word itself.

For example -

If one held Recapitulation and leaned on that theory they may say "propitiation means that Christ restored our relationship with God by succeeding where Adam failed".

If one held the PSA and leaned on their understanding they may say "propitiation means Christ suffered God's wrath in our place".

If one held Substitution Atonement they may say "propitiation" means Christ restored to God the honor men had stolen".

I simply mentioned that often men are less than faithful to words and try to short cut God's word to "prove" (often to themselves) their theories correct.


But it was not an objection. I was agreeing that Christ Himself, the Propitiation, is at the very heart of the gospel.

If the OP meant the act of propitiating then I woukd still agree. On the cross God was reconciling mankind to Himself, not vountjng sin against them, which is the basis we use to urge individuals to be reconciled to God.

Both Christ as the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world and Christ propitiating (making propitiation, actual reconciliation) is at the very heart of the gospel.

This is evident in that we will be conformed into His image. The gospel is Christ-centered.

 

[DaveXR650]

Then be clear about your objection. Are you saying that what guys like Packer get wrong is that when "propitiation" is used in scripture as a propitiation of God's wrath due us because of our sin - that is what is meant by exceeding the definition?

No. If that were my objection I would have stated so.

Instead, rather than objecting I agreed with the OP. I just said that we do not have to go to Packer as God said that Jesus Himself is the Propitiation for the sins of the world.

Packer, when he said propitiation was the heart of the gospel, explicitly said that what he was talking about is propitiation as concerning God's wrath due us because of our sin. No. We don't have to go with Packer. We could go with Spurgeon, who felt that deviance from the idea of the atonement as a propitiation of God's wrath was a primary reason for the "Downgrade" in his day.

A whole segment of Christianity in fact thinks that it is a serious error to reject the idea that propitiation is the heart of the gospel. And just as important is the concept that in the context in question we are talking about nothing other than the propitiation of God's wrath toward sinners.
So once again, do you really agree with the idea that propitiation of God's wrath toward sinners is the heart of the gospel or that propitiation should be redefined as meaning something else. Specifically. Do you hold that the idea that a substantial portion of Christianity has a wrong view of propitiation and are you aware that most of them believe that rejection of that view is a rejection of the gospel?

 

[JonC]

Packer, when he said propitiation was the heart of the gospel, explicitly said that what he was talking about is propitiation as concerning God's wrath due us because of our sin. No. We don't have to go with Packer. We could go with Spurgeon, who felt that deviance from the idea of the atonement as a propitiation of God's wrath was a primary reason for the "Downgrade" in his day.

A whole segment of Christianity in fact thinks that it is a serious error to reject the idea that propitiation is the heart of the gospel. And just as important is the concept that in the context in question we are talking about nothing other than the propitiation of God's wrath toward sinners.
So once again, do you really agree with the idea that propitiation of God's wrath toward sinners is the heart of the gospel or that propitiation should be redefined as meaning something else. Specifically. Do you hold that the idea that a substantial portion of Christianity has a wrong view of propitiation and are you aware that most of them believe that rejection of that view is a rejection of the gospel?

I do not understand what you are missing.

Yes, Jesus is the Propitiation.

Yes, this has God's wrath in mind (our wickedness, our "mind set on the flesh") separates us from God.

Christ IS the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World, making propitiation for us - reconciling us to God.


My point is some (NOT SAYING YOU) have rewrote Scripture and redefined "propitiation" to be "the object of wrath".


You could choose JI Packer. You could choose Spurgeon. You could choose John Wesley, Joyce Myer, Charles Finney, John MacArthur, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, Joel Beeke, NT Wright, Menno Simons, Karl Barth.....whoever meets your approval.

My point is you could also choose God.

 

[DaveXR650]

Yes, Jesus is the Propitiation.

Yes, this has God's wrath in mind (our wickedness, our "mind set on the flesh") separates us from God.

Christ IS the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World, making propitiation for us - reconciling us to God.

Good. There you go.

 

[JonC]

The flowers are a sacrifice (of money) in order to turn away his wife's righteous anger at his behaviour

This is pushing it a bit.

It would be a propitiation if the man picked a few flowers and gave it to his wife as an apology. In fact, a heartfelt apology alone would be a propitiation to the angry wife.

To actually propitiate it has to be accepted. If the wife hates flowers then that propitiation may be rejected (fail to propitiate or reconcile).

The man would know this quickly as rather than propitiating the woman's anger her anger would likely be expressed on those flowers. Hopefully they are not roses as the man could be picking out thorns for some time.

 

[JonC]

Good. There you go.

Yep. Like I said, I was not objecting.

The propitiation mends a relationship.

This was my point with JesusFan. He was so concerned about where God's wrath towards the wicked went when we were saved. He did not understand propitiation. Propitiation is never the object of anger or wrath. It reconciles. The anger or wrath is propitiated.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is pushing it a bit.

It would be a propitiation if the man picked a few flowers and gave it to his wife as an apology. In fact, a heartfelt apology alone would be a propitiation to the angry wife.

To actually propitiate it has to be accepted. If the wife hates flowers then that propitiation may be rejected (fail to propitiate or reconcile).

The man would know this quickly as rather than propitiating the woman's anger her anger would likely be expressed on those flowers. Hopefully they are not roses as the man could be picking out thorns for some time.

Oh boy! Well, when I see the guy again I'll send him round to you and you can explain the exact mathematical equation that gives the smallest possible bunch of flowers for the biggest apology. That should save him a pile of money! Where's the head-banging emogi?
Don't you undrstad the difference between an illustration and a formula?

 

[DaveXR650]

This was my point with JesusFan. He was so concerned about where God's wrath towards the wicked went when we were saved. He did not understand propitiation. Propitiation is never the object of anger or wrath. It reconciles. The anger or wrath is propitiated.

You mean post 83 in the thread you closed? I don't think he had the problem understanding where God's wrath went. It was you. I think his point was Christ in his sacrificial death did propitiate the wrath of God. You used a verse and like you do often, applied it differently than was intended in the context. The fact that you find a verse that says those who refuse to repent are storing up wrath for themselves in the future in no way can be used to show that simple repentance, without propitiation, is the only difference, which that verse, out of context seems to say. All anyone had to do was to read the next couple of chapters of Romans.

I also thought you were quite nasty and abusive to @JesusFan in those posts.

 

[JonC]

You mean post 83 in the thread you closed? I don't think he had the problem understanding where God's wrath went.

Yes. Wrath, anger, love, kindness, envy, jealousy, etc. are not things that literally go anywhere.

The wicked do not literally store up wrath. They do not literally take wrath throughout their lives and put that wrath in a drawer or a box.

The four corners of the Earth does not mean that the Earth is rectangular. God does not literally rest His feet on the Earth as a footstool.


If we believe the Bible we know exactly what happened to God's wrath towards us upon our salvation. You offered the answer. His wrath is propitiated. It ceases to exist towards us as we "gain favor", are reconciled to God in Christ. Propitiation effects a change in relationship.

@Martin Marprelate gave a good illustration of an angry wife. Your wife is angry with you. You offer a sincere apology and tell her you love her. Your wife's anger is propitiated. Your apology and expression of love is the propitiation.

Where did your wife's anger go? It did not go anywhere. It was propitiated and the two of you reconciled.


I think you may mean "expiation" (make amends, pay a debt).