The ideas are not mutually exclusive, since the removal of guilt and
the aversion of wrath can be understood together.
First, we briefly explore the case for expiation in biblical
sacrifice. Gerhard von Rad represents a number of biblical scholars who regard
Old Testament sacrifice as expiatory rather than propitiatory. A key text to
support the idea of the removal of guilt is Deuteronomy 21:1–9 (v. 9: “you will
have purged from yourselves the guilt of shedding innocent blood”). Von Rad
states, “As a rule . . . expiation is effected through the vicarious death of
an animal.” Furthermore, God is the one who effects expiation: “The one who
receives expiation is not Jahweh, but Israel: Jahweh is rather the one who
acts, in averting the calamitous curse which burdens the community.”
C. H. Dodd made a case for expiation on linguistic grounds, examining
Greek words used in the LXX against their uses in classical Greek literature.
Among other studies, he examined passages where the hilas- word group
trans-lates the Hebrew k- p r word group and concluded that the sense is
not one of “propitiating the Deity, but the sense of performing an act whereby
guilt of defilement is removed.” Dodd became a major proponent of the expiation
understanding of the hilas- word group in the New Testament on the basis
of what he believed about LXX usage. However, Dodd’s work has been criticized
for limiting his study to lexical issues without looking at the wider contexts
and without considering the nature of God’s character and relationship with people.Moreover,
he has been criticized for basing his conclusions on less than 40 percent of
the relevant evidence.
Second, we briefly explore the case for propitiation in biblical
sacrifice. Leon Morris also examined a swath of relevant passages, making the
following conclusions. In secular Greek usage there are only two possible
instances in which the hilas- word group could be understood in an
expiatory sense, and these are capable of being understood in a propitiatory
sense. When the hilas- word group is used in the Old Testament, the
offense is not dealt with in an impersonal way (contra expiation). Passages
that can be read in an expiatory way can also be understood in a propitiatory
way, but passages that require propitiation cannot be reduced to expiation. In
cultic settings, the verb took on a technical meaning, overshadowing other
senses. The Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old Testament do not present a
picture of propitiation like crude pagan ideas of propitiating a capricious and
malevolent deity. Nor do their authors evince a mechanistic understanding in
which sin simply needs the right antidote. “There is a personal dimension that
affects both the offending and the offended parties.”
Third, John’s Gospel presents Jesus as the fulfilment of the Passover
lamb (Exod 12),13 as seen in John the Baptist’s declaration, “Look, the Lamb of
God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29; cf. 10:11–18). Jesus is
the Lamb of God who directs God’s wrath away from his people, just as the blood
of the lamb did that first Passover in Egypt. That is propitiation. But we also
see expiation affirmed, since Jesus “takes away the sin of the world.” He
removes humanity’s sin, the cause of offense against God.
Fourth, we turn to the most likely sense meant in 1 John 2:2. Given
that the Old Testament sacrificial system was a means for dealing with God’s
wrath, that the hilas- word group denotes propitiation and on occasion
expiation too, and that John’s Gospel evidences a theology of propitiation and
expiation, it seems at the outset that propitiation at least is meant in 1 John
2:2,14 possibly along with expiation. (Constantine R. Campbell, 1, 2, &
3 John [The Story of God Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,
2017], 50-51)
