I’ve been noticing that while many conservative theologians use the term "appeasement" or "propitiation" to refer to Christs atoning sacrifice, that none of them actually mean appeasement in the sense of changing God from being unloving towards us to loving. John Stott for instance in arguing for propitiation says that propitiation "does not make God gracious…God does not love us because Christ died for us, Christ died for us because God loves us" (The Cross of Christ p.174). Certainly Jews would pretty much universally say that the OT sacrifice is not about making God love them through a bribe since it is God who gave the sacrifice thus providing the means to atonement. The prophets say too that we cannot bribe God who "owns the cattle on a 1000 hills". Even John Calvin himself says
“Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us”. (Institutes II 16:4)
Of course it is not possible to say "everyone agrees" becasue as John says in his Gospel "If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written". But I have yet to find any theologian, past or present, who wishes to claim that the cross makes an unloving God loving though a payment. So I dare say there are none.
John Stott however argues that we should still translate the Greek Hilasmos as "propitiation" or "appease" because of the element of dealing with God’s wrath instead of our sin (expiation). However since the concept of appeasing or placating normally has a reflexive subject-object as in "bill appeased Martha with flowers" to say "God appeased himself" completely changes the meaning much in the same way that Bill can steal from Martha, but to say that Martha "steals from herself to give to Bill" is a rather absurd use of the word that shows a limitation in the language. If our goal was to promote giving, then to tell people to "steal" would be a bad way to go about that. In the same way if we wish to emphasize how giving God is, then insisting on using the term "appease" or "propitiate" when we do not mean it in anything like its common use, ends up giving the opposite message. Instead of communicating how gracious and giving God is, it says that God demands payment. It can hardly be said to be honoring of God to use a "technically accurate" word and as a result present a wrong picture of him and the atonement. I would dare say that 99% of Christians hearing that the sacrifice appeased God’s wrath understand this to mean just what it would normally mean - that it bribes God into loving us. The reason people like John Stott insist on the word is because they wish to differentiate between how the atonement deals with our sin by cleaning it, and God’s wrath by appeasing it. But if that is the message they wish to communicate, why not just say that? After all why is God angry? Because of our sin. If our sin is dealt with, then so is the anger. Therefore I propose that there is no reason to use the word "appease" in referring to either the OT or NT atonement because virtually everyone agrees that it is not an appeasement in the normal sense of the word.
Pretty simple: if no one, Christian or Jew, Conservative or Liberal, Slave or Free, believe in appeasement, then don’t say what you don’t mean.
John Stott has said that seeing the atonement as “a sacrifice to appease an angry God, or that the cross was a legal transaction in which an innocent victim was made to pay the penalty for the crimes of others” as being “neither the Christianity of the bible in general nor of Paul in particular” and further that “It is doubtful if anybody has ever believed such a crude construction” (The Cross of Christ p172) I dare say that any random survey of an Evangelical congregation on Sunday morning would sadly reveal that this “crude construction” is unfortunately quite common, if not ubiquitous. That being the case, it would seem that there is a widespread problem of unorthodox belief among Evangelicals which can lead to God being portrayed as the opposite of what he is. Instead of the cross showing how incredibly gracious God is, this view (which again as Stott says "is doubtful that anyone believes") makes God seem petty and tyrannical.
If all this is true, and God is being dishonored, and people’s faith damaged because of this (according to some of the most respected and conservative voices in the church) false teaching, then I believe it is warented to call for a public correction of this among Evangelicals in their statements of faith.
Latest comments