Year: 2004

Another reader writes:

I’m having trouble developing a Catholic view of a debate the occurred amongst protestant biblical scholars over the proper translation of the greek word "hilasterion." C.H. Dodd argued that it should be translated as "expiation," conveying that Christ’s death covers or removes our sins. He disputed the translation of the greek word as "propitiation" which conveyed that Christ’s death appeased the wrath of God, a concept he found to be typical of pagan religions but inappropriately applied to New Testament thought.

It seems that some modern translations have since shyied away from "propitiation," including the New American Bible which uses the word "expiation" for all occurrences of "hilasterion," and the New Revised Standard Version uses the phrase "sacrifice of atonement."

I was beginning to think likewise until I recalled that the Council of Trent affirmed the theology behind the word "propitiation." When the Council defined the Sacrifice of the Mass it stated, "this sacrifice is truly propitiatory,…For the Lord, appeased by this oblation grants grace…" (DS 1743). So it appears that the Church confirms the concept of propitiation, in the sense of appeasing God’s wrath, even though the NAB and the NRSV avoid using this word. But I haven’t been able to find any contemporary Catholic literature on the matter. Could you please comment or advise?

This question has to be handled on two levels, the linguistic and the theological. Since I haven’t seen what Dodd said, I can’t speak directly to that, but let’s talk about the position you described.

It is very risky to mix linguistic and theological arguments in the way you described. Too often people let their theological commitments govern how they read the linguistic evidence, and this can lead them astray, even out of the best of motives (and even if their theology happens to be correct). The proper procedure is to try to first establish what the text says on purely linguistic grounds (or as near to pure as one can get) and then try to establish what it means theologically.

Linguistically, when hilasterion is used as a noun (it can also be an adjective), it appears to mean "propitiation" or "appeasement" (like its cognate noun, hilasmos). Abbott-Smith (who I just recommended, above) doesn’t list "expiation" as a possible meaning (though some newer dictionaries may, possibly through the influence of Dodd and others of the same mindset).

I wouldn’t appeal to this as a rock-solid conclusion, however, for several reasons: (1) Before doing so I want to check a bunch of dictionaries, including highly technical ones, (2) I’d want to dig into the original sources that the dictionaries and concordances reference to see if the word is regularly used in a way that would exclude "expiation" as a likely meaning, and (3) we often at this late date simply cannot tell the precise nuance a word is being given.

It’s clear that when Paul describes Jesus as a hilasterion (e.g., Rom. 3:25) that he means that it is through Jesus that the consequences of our sins are removed. That much is obvious. But the precise nuance he wants to give the term is far less obvious, whether it is the idea of turning away or satisfying wrath (propitiation/appeasement) or making amends (expiation) or something else. To establish the latter nuance with certainty, a lot of careful scholarly work would have to be done, and a completely satisfying answer might not be attainable due either to a lack of linguistic evidence or ambiguity in the evidence.

Nevertheless, let’s go with the understanding that hilasterion and its cognate terminology should primarily be understood in terms of turning away or satisfying wrath. Though I can’t document it the way I’d like at the moment, this seems to me to be the likely understanding of the nuance Paul wishes to call to mind.

Having dealt with the linguistic level, let’s kick it up to the theological level. What does propitiation mean theologically? Those who would argue that the idea taken literally is more suited to pagan than to Christian theology are correct. Pagan deities might literally feel passions like anger, but Christian theological had established long before the time of Trent that God does not literally have passions (see Aquinas on this point). As a result, when God is described as being angry or hating something, such as sin, there is a figurative component to the language (again, see Aquinas on this point).

When people sin, God is not literally burning with anger, because his infinite beatitude cannot be diminished by what creatures do. Instead, as Aquinas and Catholic theology in general points out (see Ott’s discussion of this), Scripture and the Magisterium are using language with a figurative component when they speak in this way.

The same component is present when the language of propitiation is used with regard to God. To say that God has been propitiated does not mean that he has stopped burning with anger (something he was not doing in the first place) but that the person now will not experience the painful consequences of sin that he otherwise would have experienced. The sacrifice of the Mass, by bringing about this state of affairs by applying the fruits of Christ’s sacrifice, is thus propitiatory.

What Trent was concerned to do was to repudiate Protestant hypotheses that tried to explain the Mass as a sacrifice of thanksgiving only and not one that put away sin. It was not trying to establish more precisely the concept of propitiation and relied on the understanding of it that Catholic theology had already worked out (e.g., as in Aquinas and the scholastics).

So, bottom line, from what I can tell without extensive digging into the linguistic evidence, I’d probably translate the hilasterion passages with propitiation/appeasement-related terms but then in commentaries or homilies (if I were a priest or deacon) explain what these mean theologically.