Prophecy, Prophets (continued) – Propitiation

Prophecy, Prophets (continued)

Religious teaching was closely connected with the ethical. The prophet would not permit any severance of these two elements. The explanation of the freedom and beauty of the moral lite on which they insisted was that it was not inculcated as a code, but as a service rendered to a holy and gracious God. The people were to offer the kind of service with which He would be pleased; hence the higher their conceptions of God were raised, the higher also became their standard of conduct. ‘The prophets of the 8th cent. B.C. are sometimes described as the first teachers of ethical monotheism, but this position it would be difficult to establish. That the standard of the people had sunk sadly below that of the revelation granted them is certain, and that the prophets not only recalled them to their duty, but raised their very conceptions of Deity, is practically certain. But Amos, the first of the writing prophets, appealed to a conscience and a God-consciousness already developed, and his rebukes presuppose the knowledge of one holy God, and do not inculcate the doctrine for the first time. Both he and Hosea press home the duty^ of the people to return to the God they had forsaken; sometimes sternly, sometimes with tender and pathetic pleading:’ O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? Thou art graven on the palms of my hands.’ The worst feature of the wickedness of the times lay in the unfaithfulness of Israel to the God who had bound His people to Him by the closest ties, and their disobedience is described as infidelity to a spiritual marriage vow. The prophets strove and urged and remonstrated, ‘rising up early’ and pleading that they might win the heart of the people back to God, sure that thus, and thus only, a basis could be secured for a permanently upright national and individual character. From this point of view their words can never grow obsolete.

As to the predictive element in prophecy, it may be discerned on every page, but it is not of the ‘fortunetelling’ order. Most of the predictions refer to national events, in Israel or surrounding nations. Some of these enter into detail, as in the overthrow of Ahab at Ramoth-gilead foretold by Micaiah (1 Kings 22:34), and the failure of Sennacherib’s expedition announced by Isaiah. Others threaten in a more general way that punishment will follow disobedience, this strain becoming ever sterner and more pronounced as time advanced. These dark presages were fulfilled in the case of the Northern Kingdom in the 8th cent. B.C.; and afterwards when Judah refused to take the warning, her calamities culminated in the capture and overthrow of Jerusalem.

The prophets, however, are able to take a wider outlook, their penetrating gaze extends to the more distant future. This feature is so closely blended with the last, that it is sometimes hard to distinguish the two. It is the habit of the prophets to pass immediately and without warning from the nearer to the further horizon, and the question perpetually recurs — Of whom, of what period, speaketh the prophet this? That their power of foresight was akin to the moral insight which other exceptionally gifted persons have possessed, enabling them within limits to forecast the future, may be admitted. But no parallel has been found in any other nation to the phenomena of Hebrew prophecy, especially in the continuous succession of men carrying on the same remarkable work for generations. Many critics seek to eliminate the element of the supernatural from prophecy. But, whilst it may be granted that many prophecies were not fulfilled because they were given with a condition stated or implied, and that the poetical language of many others never was literally fulfilled, or intended to be so, there remain a considerable number of national predictions which were fulfilled in a very remarkable manner, especially when we bear in mind that they ran directly counter to the prejudices of the times and were sometimes uttered at the- risk of very life to the daring messenger himself.

A candid examination of the whole conditions of the case must lead to the admission of a supernatural power and knowledge in Hebrew prophecy— quite apart from the Messianic element, which will be considered separately. The attempts to explain this away have failed. The prophetic power was not exceptional political shrewdness, not the mere sanguine expectation of enthusiasts, or the gloomy foreboding of convinced pessimists; it was not like the second-sight of the Highlander, the effect of excitement upon a highly ‘sensitive temperament; nor, as rationalism teaches, can all predictions be explained on the vaticinia post eventum principle, sis history written after the event. On the other hand, supernatural enlightenment and direction must be included, whilst it may be freely admitted with Tholuck that the predictions were for the most part ‘not of the accidental, but of the religiously necessary,’ that they were mostly general, sometimes hypothetical, consistent with the freedom of the persons addressed, and that while they contain what some call ‘failures,’ in broad outline they reflect with wonderful accuracy and force the word of God in relation to the principles and progress of human history.

4. Messianic prophecy and its fulfilment. — It was inevitable that teachers so commissioned by God to declare His will should take a wider range. Theirs was emphatically a message of hope — they were sent to prepare the way for a brighter future. Hence we find them passing, by rapid and almost insensible gradations, from immediate to far distant issues, and descriptions of a Final Consummation are blended with their very practical teaching as to present duty. In later Judaism these prospects of coming national felicity gathered round the term Messiah, the Anointed One, used to designate a coming Deliverer, through whose instrumentality the glories of the future age were to be realized. Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be, and was, the promised Messiah of the Jews, and the name ‘Messianic prophecy’ has been given to predictions which refer directly to the ideal personage of whose coming the prophets were the heralds. But this narrower meaning of the phrase is for several reasons unsatisfactory. In the first place, ‘Messiah’ is not a recognized OT term for this Deliverer; it may be questioned whether the word is once used in this sense. Further, there is a great body of prophetic utterances which belong to the ‘Messianic’ era, though no mention is made of a personal King or Saviour. And from the Christian point of view, the preparation for the coming of Christ was very various: many prophecies are believed to find direct fulfilment in Him, in which neither the name nor the idea of a personal Messiah occurs; hence ‘Messianic prophecy’ is now generally understood to mean all the OT promises which refer to the final accomplishment of God’s purposes for the nation and the world.

The whole OT religion is one of hope. God’s promises made to His people were too large, the ideal descriptions of their pnvileges were too lofty, to find full realization at any early stage of national development. And Israel itself waa so intractable and unfaithful, and the gap between profession and practice was so painfully obvious, that the gaze of the people was ever fixed on the future. Sometimes the prospect was held out of a regenerated city, sometimes of an ideal temple and its worship, sometimes the idea prevailed of a clearer manifestation of God Himself in the midst of His people, sometimes expectation pointed to a Ruler who would embody all the qualities of righteousness, wisdom, and power which had been so conspicuously lacldng in many monarchs of the Davidic line. Sometimes material considerations figured most largely in the pictures of the future; — the fruitfulness of the lajid. abundance of com and wine and oil; sometimes a promise filled the air like musiC[ of an unprecedented peace which should bless the often invaded and always more or less disturbed country: sometimes a broad landscape picture waa drawn of the extensive dominion and influence which Israel should exercise over the nations around. And it is obviously undesirable that forecasts which contain a mor« directly personal referenceshould be separated from these others with which they were closely connected in the prophets’ thoughts, especially as closer examination has tended to reduce the number of passages which may be described as directly Messianic. A few central ideas lay at the heart of the whole. The Covenant which bound together God and His people, the City in which He made His abode, the Temple hallowed by His presence, the Kingdom in which His law should prevail and His will be always done, were never very far from the minds of the ancient seers. Correspondingly, the Jew anticipated, and the prophet foretold, the coming of the ideal King who would dwell in the City and at the head of the Kingdom, the ideal Priest of the Temple, the ideal Prophet to declare the Divine puriioses completely, and cement the Divine Covenant so that it should never again be broken. Brooding over the whole was the thought of the Divine Presence, which in the future was to oe a Theophany indeed.

It was only in the 2nd cent. B.C. that the term ‘Messiah’ became the focus in which all these rays were centralized. In the OT books the word is used as an epithet of the king, ‘Jehovah’s anointed’; it is used of Cyrus, a heathen prince, in Isaiah 45:1 f. ; possibly, though improbably. It may be understood as a proper name in Daniel 9:25; whilst some would find in Psalms 2 an almost unique use of the word to designate the Ideal Prince of the house of David who should rule all the nations with unparalleled and illimitable sway. But if the term ‘Messiah,’ standing alone to designate a unique ofhce, appears comparatively late in Jewish history, a less clearly defined idea of a personal Ruler and Deliverer pervaded the national thought for centuries before. The terms (1) ‘Son of David,’ pointing to a ruler of the Davidic line, together with ‘Branch’ or ‘Shoot,’ with the same connotation; (2) ‘Son of Man,’ applied in OT to Ezekiel and others, sometimes indicating man in his frailty, but sometimes man as God intended him to be; and (3) ‘Son of God,’ indicating the nation Israel, Israel’s judges and Israel’s king, alike representing the Most High upon earth — all helped to prepare the way for the idea of a Messiah who should, in an undefined and unimaginable way, unite the excellences of the whole in His person. (4) One other name, such as would not have occurred to the earlier prophets, appears freely in Second Isaiah; and, as the event proved, influenced subsequent thought to an unexpectedly profound degree — the ‘Servant of Jehovah’ as Sufferer and Saviour. It was along these lines and others kindred to them which have not been named, that the preparation was made by the prophets for the coming of Israel’s true Deliverer. When all are put together, it will be seen that 11, the number of passages referring directly to the Messiah by name is unexpectedly small, the number which prepared the thoughts of the people for His Advent is exceedingly large, and these are so various in their character that it might well have seemed Impossible that they should all be realized in one Person.

It is quite Impossible here to survey this vast field even In outline. But one point must not be lost sight of — the distinction between those prophecies which are directly and those which are only indirectly Messianic. When the meaning of the prophet’s words is obviously too lofty to be applied in any sense to a mere earthly kingdom, or where the context necessitates it, we may assume that the prophet’s eyes were fixed, not on his contemporaries but on the far distance, and the period of the Consummation tor which it was needful long to wait. But where the mention of local and temporal conditions or of human imperfections and limitations makes it clear that the immediate reference of a passage is to the prophet’s own times, whilst yet his glance shoots at intervals beyond them, there the words are only indirectly Messianic, and a typical significance is found in them. That is, the same ideas or principles are Illustrated in the earlier as in the later dispensation, but in an interior degree; the points of similarity and difference varying in their relative proportions, so that a person or an event or an institution under the Old Covenant may more or less dimly foreshadow the complete realization of the Divine purpose yet to come. The type may be described as a prophetic symbol.

The line between typical and directly prophetic passages is not always easy to draw. For example, it may be debated in what sense Pss 2. 8. 16. 45. 72 and others are ‘Messianic,’ the probability being that in every case the primary thought of the Psalmist was occupied with the history that he knew, though his words in each case soared beyond their immediate occasion. So the language of Isaiah 53 — which tor centuries has been understood by Christian interpreters to refer directly to a suffering Messiah — is now understood by some of the best Christian scholars as referring at least in the first instance to faithful Israel. An ideal personification of Israel, i.e., identified with the nation yet distinct from it, is represented as the true servant of God carrying out His purposes for the national purification, even through persecution, suffering, and death. Opinions may well differ as to whether this interpretation is adequate. But it must be borne in mind in any case that in the prophets we do find a remarkable combination of two features — a wide outlook into the future implying preternatural insight, and very marked limitations of vision derived from the ideas of the times in which they lived. The object of the student of Messianic prophecy is to examine the relations between these two elements; and to show how out of the midst of comparatively narrow ideas, determined by the speaker’s political and historical environment, there arose others, lofty, wide, and comprehensive, with ‘springing and germinant accomplishments,’ and thus the Spirit of Christ which was in the prophets ‘testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow them.’

When we inquire conceiningthefulfilment of prophecy, it is necessary to distinguish between (1) what the prophet meant by his words in the first instance, according to their plainest and simplest interpretation; (2) any realization, more or less imperfect, of his utterances in Israelitish history; (3) any more complete realization of them which may have taken place in Christ and Christianity, considered as the Divinely appointed ‘fulfilment’ of Judaism; and (4) any appropriate application of the prophetic words which may be made in subsequent generations in further illustration of the principles laid down. It there be a wise and gracious God who orders all the events of human history, it He inspired the OT prophets to declare His will for some centuries before Christ, it the climax of His selt-revelation was reached in the gift of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, and if He is still working out His purposes of righteous love among the nations of the modern world, it is to be expected that the declarations of the prophets will receive many ‘fulfilments,’ many of them much wider, deeper, and more significant than the prophets themselves could possibly understand. But the meaning of the original words as first uttered should first of all be studied without any reference to subsequent events. Then the nature of the connexion between OT and NT should be clearly understood, and the principles on which the NT writers find a complete realization o£ the promises of the Old Covenant in the New. And afterwards it will not be difficult to see in what sense perpetually new applications of the prophets’ words may be legitimately made to the subsequent history of the Kingdom of God in the earth.

Every reader of the NT must have noticed that the words ‘that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet’ are used very freely by the several writers, ■ and not always in precisely the same sense. Christ i Himself led the way and the Apostles followed Him in declaring that His work on earth was to ‘fulfil’ both i the Law and the prophets, and that the whole of the OT Scriptures pointed to Him and testified of Him. It was not so much that minute coincidences might be discerned between the phraseology of the OT and the ; events of His life, though it was natural that such should be noted by the Evangelists. But Jesus spe- I cially insisted upon the fact which it is most important ; for the student of the Bible to observe, viz. that what ; the Law failed to accomplish, and what the prophets ‘and those who looked for the fulfilment of their words had failed to realize, He had come completely and perfectly to achieve. The emphasis lies, as might have been expected, upon the spiritual, rather than the literal, meaning of the Scriptures; and the most complete fulfilment of OT words lies not in a precise correspondence between circumstantial forecasts made long before with the details of His personal history, but in a spiritual realization of that great end which law-givers, kings, prophets, and righteous men under the Old Covenant desired to see, but were not able.

OT prophecy, then, is best understood when it is viewed as one remarkable stage in a long and still more remarkable history. Some of its utterances have not been, and never will be fulfilled, in the sense that many of its students have expected. A large proportion of them have already been fulfilled, though in strange and unlooked-for fashion, by Him of whom it has been said that ‘the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy’ (Revelation 19:10). In the Person, life, sufferings, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ, and in the establishment of His Kingdom on the earth, is to be found the fullest realization of the glowing words of the prophets who prepared the way for His coming. For a still more complete fulfilment of their highest hopes and fairest visions the world still waits. But those who believe in the accomplishment of God’s faithful word thus far will not find it difficult to believe that our Lord’s words concerning the Law (Matthew 5:18) may be adapted, and that in the highest spiritual sense they will be at last realized — ‘Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the prophets, till all things be accomplished.’

W. T. Davison. PROPHET (in NT).— 1. The spirit of prophecy, as it meets us under the Old Dispensation, runs on into the New, and there are prophets in the NT who are properly to be described as OT prophets. Such as Anna the prophetess (Luke 2:36; cf. Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the OT); Zacharias, who is expressly said to have prophesied (Luke 1:67 ff.) ; Simeon, whose Nunc Dimittis is an utterance of an unmistakably prophetic nature (2:25 ff.). But above all there is John the Baptist, who was not only recognized by the nation as a great prophet (Matthew 14:5 21:26. Mark 11:32. Luke 20:6). but was declared by Jesus to be the greatest prophet of the former dispensation, while yet less than the least in the Kingdom of heaven (Matthew 11 = Luke 7).

2. Jesus Himself was a prophet. It was in this character that the Messiah had been promised (Dt 18:15, 18; cf. Acts 3:22 7:37), and had been looked for by many (John 6:14). During His public ministry it was as a prophet that He was known by the people (Matthew 21:11) cf. Luke 7:16). and described by His own disciples (Luke 24:19). and even designated by Himself (Matthew 13:57, Luke 13:33). And according to the teaching of the NT, the exalted Christ still continues to exercise His prophetic function, guiding His disciples into all the truth by the Spirit whom He sends (John 16:7, 13), and " building up the body’ by bestowing upon it Apostles, prophets, and teachers (Ephesians 4:8 ff.).

3. From the prophetic office of her exalted Head there fiowed the prophetic endowment of the Church. Joel had foretold a time when the gift of prophecy should be conferred upon all (.2!"‘-), and at Pentecost we see that word fulfilled (Acts 2:16 ff.). Ideally, all the Lord’s people should be prophets. For’ the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy’ (Revelation 19:10), and in proportion as Christians are filled with the Pentecostal Spirit they will desire, like the members of the new-born Church, to bear testimony to their Master (cf. Numbers 11:29. 1 Corinthians 14:5).

4. But even in the Spirit-filled Church diversities of gifts quickly emerged, and a special power of prophetic utterance was bestowed upon certain individuals. A prophetic ministry arose, a ministry of Divine inspiration, which has to be distinguished from the official ministry of human appointment (see art. Ministry). In a more general sense, all those who ‘spoke the word of God’ (Hebrews 13:7) were prophets. The ministry of the word (Acts 6:4) was a prophetic ministry, and so we find St. Paul himself described as a prophet long after he had become an Apostle (Acts 13:1).

5. But in a more precise use of the term we find the specific NT prophet distinguished from others who ‘speak the word of God,’ and in particular from the Apostle and the teacher (1 Corinthians 12:28 f.: cf. Ephesians 4:11). The distinction seems to be that while the Apostle was a missionary to the unbelieving (Galatians 2:7, 8). the prophet was a messenger to the Church (1 Corinthians 14:4, 22) and while the teacher explained or enforced truth that was already possessed (Hebrews 5:12). the prophet was recognized by the spiritual discernment of his hearers (1 Corinthians 2:15 14:29. 1 John 4:1) as the Divine medium of fresh revelations (1 Corinthians 147, Ephesians 3:5; cf. Did. iv. 1).

Three main types of prophesying may be distinguished in the NT — (a) First, there is what may be called the ordinary ministry of prophecy in the Church, described by St. Paul as ‘edification and comfort and consolation’ (1 Corinthians 14:3). (6) Again, there is, on special occasions, the authoritative announcement of the Divine will in a particular case, as when the prophets of Antioch, in obedience to the Holy Ghost, separate Barnabas and Saul for the work of missionary evangelization (Ac 13:1 ff.; cf. 22 16:6 ff.). (c) Rarely there is the prediction of a future event, as in the case of Agabus (ll’s 21; cf. v. 4).

Of Christian prophets in the specific sense several are mentioned in the NT: Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32), the prophets at Antioch (13:1), Agabus and the prophets from Jerusalem (11:27 f. 21:10), the four daughters of Philip the evangelist (v. 9). But these few names give us no conception of the numbers and influence of the prophets in the Apostolic Church. For light upon the.se points we have to turn especially to the Pauline Epistles ^e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:28 f. 14, Ephesians 2:20 3:5 4:11). Probably they were to be found in every Christian community, and there might even be several of them in a single congregation (1 Corinthians 14:29). Certain of them, possessed no doubt of conspicuous gifts, moved about from church to church (Acts 11:27 f. 21:10; cf. Matthew 10:41. Did. xiii. 1). Others, endowed with literary powers, would commit their ‘visions and revelations’ to writing, just as some prophets of the OT had done, though of this literary type of prophecy we have only one example in the NT — the Book of Revelation (cf. Revelation 1:3 22:7, 9, 10 is).

Quite a flood of light is shed upon the subject of the NT prophets by the evidence of the Didache. We see there that about the end of the first century or the beginning of the second the prophet is still held in the highest estimation(xi. 7, xiii.), and takes precedence, wherever he goes. of the local ministry of bishops and deacons (x. 7). But we also see the presence in the Church of those influences which gradually led to the elimination of the prophetic ministry. One influence is the abundance of false prophets (xi. 8 if.; cf. Matthew 7:15 24:11, 24. 1 John 4:1). tending to make the Church suspicious of all prophetic assumptions, and to bring prophecy as such into disrepute. Another is the growing importance of the official ministry, which begins to claim the functions previously accorded to the prophets alone (xv. 1). Into the hands of the official class all power in the Church gradually passed, and in spite of the outburst of the old prophetic claims, during the latter half of the 2nd cent., in connexion with the Montanist movement, the prophet in the distinctive NT sense disappears entirely from the Catholic Church, while the ministry of oflice takes the place of the ministry of inspiration. J. C. Lambert.

Prophetess

1. The courtesy title of a prophet’s wife (Isaiah 8:3). 2. The OT title of women in whom the promise was fulfilled: ‘your daughters shall prophesy’ (Joel 2:28; cf. Psalms 68:11 RV). ‘The term is of course not to be misunderstood, as if it referred merely to predictions relating to the future: the reference is in general to inspired instruction in moral and religious truth’ (Driver, Camb. Bible, in loc.). The title is given to Miriam (Exodus 15:20). Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14. 2 Chronicles 34:22), and Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14). 3. The NT gift of prophecy was bestowed on women (Acts 21:9, 1 Corinthians 11:5). Anna (Luke 2:36) is the only ‘prophetess’ mentioned by name, except Jezebel (Revelation 2:20). who was probably not the wife of the angel of the church (RVm), but a temptress of the Christians at Thyatira to whom was given the name of Israel’s wicked queen. J. G. Taskbr.

Propitiation

The idea of propitiation is borrowed from the sacrificial ritual of the OT, and the term is used in the EV of the NT in three instances (Romans 3, 1 John 2:2 4:10) of Christ as offering the sacrifice for sin which renders God propitious, or merciful, to the sinner. In the first of these pe^sages the word is strictly ‘propitiatory’(answering to the OT’ mercy-seat’), and RVm renders ‘whom God set forth to be propitiatory,’ without, however, essential change of meaning. In the two Johannine passages the noun is directly applied to Christ: ‘He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world’ (2:2) ; ‘Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (4:10). In one other passage. Hebrews 2. the RV renders ‘to make propitiation for the sins of the people,’ instead of, as in AVi ‘to make reconciliation.’

1. In the OT.— In the OT, to which we go back for explanation, the Heb. word kipper, which corresponds with ‘to make propitiation,’ is ordinarily rendered ‘to make atonement,’ sometimes ‘to reconcile’ (e.g. Leviticus 6:30 AV, but in RV ‘to make atonement’); the word has primarily the sense ‘to cover,’ but in actual usage has the meaning of ‘to conciliate’ an offended party, or ‘to hide or expiate’ an offence. A person may be conciliated by a gift (Genesis 32:20) ; may be made propitious by intercession (Exodus 32:30) an offence may be atoned for by an act of zeal for righteousness (Numbers 25:13). In ritual usage it is the priest who ‘makes atonement’ far the offender, as touching, or concerning, his sin (cf. Leviticus 1:4 4:35 5 etc.). Both ideas seem to be implied here; the offence is cancelled or annulled, — hidden from God’s sight, — and God is rendered propitious: His displeasure is turned away. The means by which this was effected under the Law was ordinarily sacrifice (burnt-offering, sin-offering, guilt-offering; the idea was doubtless present in the peace-offering as well). The blood of an unblemished victim, obtained by slaughter, was sprinkled on the altar, or otherwise presented to Jehovah (cf. Lv 1-7, and see Atonement). On the annual Day of Atonement expiation of the sins of the people was effected by an elaborate ceremonial. which included the carrying of the blood into the Holy of Holies, and the sprinkling of it upon the mercy-seat (Leviticus 16). The significance of these rites is considered in the artt. Atonement and Atonement [Day of).

2. In the NT. — These analogies throw light upon the meaning of the term in the NT in its application to Christ, and further illustration is found in St. Paul’s words in Romans 3:25. The Apostle, having shown that no one can attain to righteousness, or be justified before God, by works of law, proceeds to exhibit the Divine method of justification, without law, by ‘a righteousness of God’ obtained through faith in Jesus Christ. ‘Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set Jorth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood, to show his righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God.’ The ideas in this passage include the following: (1) that Christ’s death is a propitiatory sacrifice; (2) that sin cannot be righteously passed over except on the ground of such a sacrifice; (3) that Christ’s propitiatory death is the vindication of God’s righteousness in passing over sins under the older dispensation (cf. Hebrews 9:13) (4) that the virtue of Christ’s propitiation is appropriated by faith; (S) that everyone thus appropriating Christ’s propitiation, freely set forth, becomes possessed of ‘a righteousness of God’ which perfectly justifies him. It is seen, therefore, that Christ’s death is here regarded as having a true power to expiate guilt, redeem the sinner from condemnation, set him in righteous relations with God, and make him an object of God’s favour. It is not otherwise that Christ’s manifestation is conceived of by St. John, who in his Epistle emphasizes the cleansing power of Christ’s blood (1:7). extols Christ as the propitiation for the sins of the world (2:2). and declares that the love of God is seen in this, that He sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (4:10; cf. ‘to take away sins,’ 3:5).

This last passage raises the difficulty which will naturally be felt about ‘propitiation.’ Assuming, as can hardly be denied, that the term includes the idea of rendering God propitious, or favourable, how is this to be reconciled with the statement that the propitiation itself proceeds from, and is a demonstration of, the love of God? Can it be supposed that God, who Himself sends the Son, needs to be appeased, conciliated, or in any way made more gracious than He is, by His Son’s death? That idea, which belongs to the heathenish conception of propitiation, must certainly be excluded. Yet the paradox holds good that, while God loves the sinner, and earnestly seeks his salvation, there is a necessary reaction of the holiness of God against sin, manifesting itself in displeasure, withdrawal, judgment, wrath, which hinders the outflow of His friendship and favour to the world as He would desire it to flow forth. The sinner cannot take the initiative here; it must come from God Himself. Yet it must come in such a way as furnishes an adequate ground for the extension of His mercy. Christ’s work in our nature was one which entered into the deepest need of God’s own being, as well as into the imperatives of His just government of the world. In the Person of His own well-beloved Son a reconciliation was truly effected with humanity, which extends to all who receive the Son as Saviour and Lord. This is the reality in propitiation. See Atonement. James Orr.