• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Defining Propitiation

V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Several English translations of the Greek New Testament use the word "propitiation." The NASB uses the English word to translate G2434, a masculine noun, and G2435, a neuter noun.

In 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10 the masculine noun "hilasmos" is translated as "the propitiation" and footnoted as "means of reconciliation."

In Romans 3:25 the neuter noun "hilastērion" is translated "as a propitiation," and in Hebrews 9:5, the neuter noun is translated "mercy seat."

Both of these nouns are said to be derived from the verb G2433, "hilaskomai" found in Luke 18:13 and Hebrews 2:17.

But the meaning is not vague or obscure. Christ is the means of reconciliation, He is the place where reconciliation is received, and if God has transferred you spiritually into Christ, you have been past tense reconciled to God, and if you are not "in Christ" you are not reconciled to God. Full Stop.

In 1 John 2:2 Jesus is the means of reconciliation for the sins of humanity, every human spirit transferred into Christ is reconciled, everyone not transferred into Christ is not reconciled.

In 1 John 4:10 God sent His Son as the means of reconciliation for our sins. If you have been transferred into Christ, you have been reconciled, if you have not been transferred into Christ, you have not been reconciled.

In Romans 3:25, God demonstrated His righteousness in publicly displaying Christ crucified as the means of reconciliation for the sins previously passed over.

In Hebrews 9:5, Jesus is the place of reconciliation under the New Covenant, but also under the Old Covenant. He is so to speak the eternal seat of mercy, just as the lid of the ark of the covenant foreshadowed.

In Luke 18:13, the tax collector was somewhat unwilling to even plead for the mercy of God's reconciliation, having such a low view of himself. But this humility would be rewarded with the justification of reconciliation.

In Hebrews 2:17, Christ provides reconciliation for the sins of people, the people God transfers into Christ.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If we look at just 1 John 2:2, we see various English translations rendering "hilasmos" G2434 usually as something that has accomplished something, rather than the means by which something might be accomplished.

For example, several translations go with "atoning sacrifice" indicating the action of a verb, rather than the means by which a reconciliation might be accomplished.

Another example, we find "sacrifice that takes way" again suggesting the sacrifice accomplished the action, rather than provided the means by which forgiveness might be accomplished.

Final example, we find "expiation" which has two meanings, one, the act of making reconciliation, and two, to provide the means for making reconciliation. So the translation leaves up to the reader, whether reconciliation was accomplished on the cross, or the means for reconciliation was provided by His sacrifice on the cross.

The point is that vague translations open the door to mistaken doctrine, and our current English translations seem full of vague or ambiguous translations. And of course, sometimes the underlying original language text is ambiguous. But even in these cases, one would expect that the most likely meaning, in the opinion of the translators, would appear in the main translation text, but would be footnoted with the alternate meaning. That would give the reader the opportunity to study the difficulty and arrive at his or her best understanding.
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Van said:
If we look at just 1 John 2:2, we see various English translations rendering "hilasmos" G2434 usually as something that has accomplished something, rather than the means by which something might be accomplished.

For example, several translations go with "atoning sacrifice" indicating the action of a verb, rather than the means by which a reconciliation might be accomplished.

Another example, we find "sacrifice that takes way" again suggesting the sacrifice accomplished the action, rather than provided the means by which forgiveness might be accomplished.

Final example, we find "expiation" which has two meanings, one, the act of making reconciliation, and two, to provide the means for making reconciliation. So the translation leaves up to the reader, whether reconciliation was accomplished on the cross, or the means for reconciliation was provided by His sacrifice on the cross.

The point is that vague translations open the door to mistaken doctrine, and our current English translations seem full of vague or ambiguous translations. And of course, sometimes the underlying original language text is ambiguous. But even in these cases, one would expect that the most likely meaning, in the opinion of the translators, would appear in the main translation text, but would be footnoted with the alternate meaning. That would give the reader the opportunity to study the difficulty and arrive at his or her best understanding.
Click to expand...
Its to provide appeasement for the wrath of a Holy God
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JesusFan said:
Its to provide appeasement for the wrath of a Holy God
Click to expand...
Once again, a claim is made without any reference to scripture. Folks, ask this poster for all the verses where the word "appeasement" is said to be accomplished by Christ's sacrifice. See how many he provides.

Bottom line, the noun forms of verb do not indicate an action being accomplished, that is false premise of a false doctrine.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Martin Marprelate said:
Christ is not the means of reconciliation - He is the reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19).
Click to expand...
Once again the false doctrine is claimed, not by evidence, but by simply claiming "taint so."

Does 2 Corinthians 5:19 say or suggest Christ is not the means of reconciliation? Nope

God has committed to us the message of reconciliation, we are to beg the lost to "be reconciled to God."

As usual, these false teachers, muddy the waters. When scripture is addressing those who have been born anew, have been reconciled, they claim this says everyone to receive the reconciliation has already received it. In other words, they make a muddle of the clear teaching of scripture.
 
M

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
Does 2 Corinthians 5:19 say or suggest Christ is not the means of reconciliation? Nope
Click to expand...
Does 2 Corinthians say or suggest Christ is the means of reconciliation? Nope. 'That God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them...'
We are saved by what Christ has done, not by what He might do, or what we might accept. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' "It is finished" (Perfect Tense. It has been perfected, achieved, accomplished, paid. All those words are possible translations).
'....And has committed to us the word of reconciliation.' The work of the preacher or evangelist is to call men and women to the finished work of Christ and plead with them to be reconciled to God (v.20).
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Van said:
Once again, a claim is made without any reference to scripture. Folks, ask this poster for all the verses where the word "appeasement" is said to be accomplished by Christ's sacrifice. See how many he provides.

Bottom line, the noun forms of verb do not indicate an action being accomplished, that is false premise of a false doctrine.
Click to expand...
The death of Jesus was a surety to our sin dent owed to a Holy God being paid in full, as that wrath was satisfied and atoned for by the shed blood of the Messiah upon that Cross
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Martin Marprelate said:
Does 2 Corinthians say or suggest Christ is the means of reconciliation? Nope. 'That God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them...'
We are saved by what Christ has done, not by what He might do, or what we might accept. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' "It is finished" (Perfect Tense. It has been perfected, achieved, accomplished, paid. All those words are possible translations).
'....And has committed to us the word of reconciliation.' The work of the preacher or evangelist is to call men and women to the finished work of Christ and plead with them to be reconciled to God (v.20).
Click to expand...
Yet again, complete nonsense.

God is reconciling the world, not has reconciled the world. Full Stop
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JesusFan said:
The death of Jesus was a surety to our sin dent owed to a Holy God being paid in full, as that wrath was satisfied and atoned for by the shed blood of the Messiah upon that Cross
Click to expand...
Note the list of undefined vague terms. Surety means a payment for a debt.

Does this answer the question, did Christ die for the specific sins of specific individuals, or for humanity's sin? No answer is specified in the posted blarney.

Ditto, whose debt of wrath? No answer.

All these posters do is regurgitate their indoctrination, as they never answer such questions such as why as ambassadors of Christ do we beg the lost to be reconciled to God. There false doctrine claims all the lost have been reconciled. It is nonsense, so they dodge and weave and change the subject.

Here is the absurdity of absurdities, Jesus did not become the means of reconciliation, according to at least one Calvinist poster. No one needs to believe in His name, as you are either reconciled or you will never be reconciled, according to Calvinist dogma. How anyone could read the bible and believe the doctrines of futility is beyond comprehension.

John 3:16, everyone believing (present tense) into Him shall not perish. No the Calvinist rewrite it, everyone compelled to believe was actually individually chosen before creation, and only those guys will not perish.

By their traditions they make God's word to no effect.
 
Last edited:
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The word means reconciliation (it is something that reconciles one to another, regains favor or a good standing).

Anyway, Scripture tells us that Jesus became the means of reconciliation (God was reconciling mankind to Himsel which os the bases we urge men to be reconciled to God.

I cannot imagine a Christian (even one who is also a Calvinist) denying that Christ became the means for us to be reconciled to God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Van
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
The word means reconciliation (it is something that reconciles one to another, regains favor or a good standing).

Anyway, Scripture tells us that Jesus became the means of reconciliation (God was reconciling mankind to Himsel which os the bases we urge men to be reconciled to God.

I cannot imagine a Christian (even one who is also a Calvinist) denying that Christ became the means for us to be reconciled to God.
Click to expand...
he is that Propiation for our sins, as His death by being the sin bearer atoned for our sins, and satisfied the Holy wrath of God towards us, appeased that Holy Wrath due to us
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jesus is the means of reconciliation not only for our sins, but for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2. To become the means of reconciliation Jesus bore the penalty for our sins, but not only ours, but for those of the whole of humanity. The wages of sin is death, so Christ died on the cross for the sin of humanity. By His mortal wounds, we, those having received the reconciliation, were healed. And by His wounds, He became the means of reconciliation for the whole of humanity, those having not yet received the reconciliation. Thus we are to beg the lost, be reconciled to God.

No need to make a puzzle out of what should be obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top