Tell me more ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 13 down vote favorite
6

Western theology tends to view atonement as propitiation, while Eastern tends to view it as expiation. What are the primary differences and implications of each perspective? Are they antithetical or complementary paradigms? This is related to this question, which tackles translation issues concerning biblical passages that use these terms.

share|improve this question
can you verify that the two views you're talking about are Ransom Theory and Satisfaction Theory? – Thomas Shields Apr 12 '12 at 21:29
I was intentionally leaving it more open-ended. The propitiation language is used in satisfaction theory, Christus Victor, and penal substitution. Expiation language is used by proponents of ransom theory and could also be used by proponents of recapitulation theory and those who incorporate the notion of theosis into their soteriology. Feel free to make a case for one in specific over others, but you don't have to.... – Dan O'Day Apr 12 '12 at 21:38
ahh, okay. gotcha. Awesome question, btw. – Thomas Shields Apr 12 '12 at 21:42
Thanks. The question is very intertwined with the translation of Romans 3:25, which I asked about at hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1526/… . I'd love to combine the questions but then I would not be using the sites as designed. – Dan O'Day Apr 12 '12 at 21:43
1  
if no one has answered this by the end of the day, I'm gonna kick into research mode and (attempt to) knock this out. I really want an answer on this one. :D – Thomas Shields Apr 12 '12 at 22:03
show 6 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote

I can only answer from the Western bias as I fail to comprehend the Eastern thought even when it is explained. Western thought properly includes propitiation and expiation it does not toss one out for the other or put them at competing sides. It does not exclude either. However the Eastern thought seems to be uncomfortable with the propitiation involved in the cross and does not seem to me to believe that God’s wrath was poured out on the Son.

In Western thought propitiation, which is that part of the work of Christ on the cross, that makes ‘appeasement’ to an offended God, satisfying his wrath for sin. The other side of Western thought is expiation. Expiation occurs on the cross (not only to have the punishment of sin removed through propitiation) but to have sins cleansed and removed as well. Cleansing and deliverance from the actual power of sin is implied by expiation.

Cleary both of these aspects are implied by the scriptural view as the idea started with the Passover lamb and as well as the burned 'red heifer'. Both the concept of propitiation and expiation are clearly established under the Old Testament foreshadowing types. First, God’s ‘wrath’ in killing the first-born of Egypt was avoided by the Passover Lamb. The Jews were not cleansed by putting blood on the doorposts but were avoiding a deadly destruction of anger. Second, on the other hand, the burning of the 'red heifer' and collection of ashes oustide the camp clealry implies the actual ceremonial cleansing of the sacrfificial type. The ashes of the burnt animal were directly used for ceremonial washing buy mixing some ashes with water and sprinkling the unclean. (Ref Leviticus 19, Hebrews 19:13-14))

One can’t properly witness the ceremonial sacrifices of the Old Testament without believing both propitiation and expiation as inseparable objects, each meaningless without each other. First the worshipper or priest would lay hands on the animal to be sacrificed, symbolizing the transfer of guilt. Then the shedding of blood and total destruction of the animal would occur, symbolizing the appeasement to an offended God. Then the blood would ceremonially cleanse the worshipper. Clearly all these things support a proper view and cast grave doubts on any view that might try to limit them to only propitiation, or expiation.

Both propitiation and expiation are implied by each other in the removal of guilt. An angry God is no longer angry when guilt is transferred to another in propitiation. The stain of guilt is wiped away from expiation. Both propitiation and expiation are meaningless terms unless the removal of guilt in understood in each.

Both propitiation and expiation are implied by each other in the removal of guilt. An angry God is no longer angry when guilt is transferred to another in propitiation. The stain of guilt is wiped away from expiation. Both propitiation and expiation are meaningless terms unless the removal of guilt in understood in each.

The eastern view is that God changes when he ceases to be angry (according to the Western view) but propitiation does not imply any change in God whatsoever. He still is angry with sin but its guilt has been transferred to another. God can never change or remove his wrath. It must be extinguished on a a subject who bears the guilt of sin.

share|improve this answer
I thought your answer was a good both/and response, albeit from a Western perspective. As a side note, here's an article that often helps people understand the Eastern mentality a little better. It misportrays (read "demonizes") Protestantism, though, which I do not appreciate. Even so, it does a good job illustrating the Eastern offense at the Western soteriological framework of merit: journeytoorthodoxy.com/2011/09/12/… – Dan O'Day Sep 19 '12 at 21:58
@DanO'Day - Thanks Dan for the article it confirms my instinct about the eastern view. – Mike Sep 20 '12 at 15:10
It is very shocking to many Western Christians, but I would say that until you understand the underlying worldview differences even this is an incomplete view. A great book that does it justice is "Light from the Christian East," which is written by a Protestant for Western Christians to better understand the East: amazon.com/Light-Christian-East-Introduction-Tradition/dp/… This will give a fuller picture and help Western Christians appreciate the Eastern unique views. – Dan O'Day Sep 23 '12 at 1:11
When it comes to Orthodox theology, it can't be boiled down into bullet points and categorized like Western theology, which often has more to do with Aristotelian Scholasticism than it does with scripture. Keep in mind that when the apostles shared the gospel, they wrote entire books (the gospel according to Matthew). It wasn't boiled down to three syllogisms. Orthodox theology retains this. It refuses to be boiled down. All theology is an attempt to understand an infinite God in finite language by time-and-space-bound creatures. It always falls short. This is why the East is apophatic.... – Dan O'Day Sep 23 '12 at 1:22
This is a good answer, but it does not accurately represent expiation, so I don't want to mark this as answered yet. You correctly noted that propitiation means gaining the favor of an offended party, such as a god, or God, by eliminating wrath. But expiation means the removal of guilt (not guilt feelings but judicial guilt), so that a guilty party becomes a non-guilty one. Propitiation therefore indicates that God is changed. Expiation indicates that the repentant sinner is changed. But this raises another question: does God change? I was hoping someone would address this. – Dan O'Day Sep 25 '12 at 22:56
show 8 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.