ἱλάσκεσθαι: To Propitiate Or To Expiate?

By James E. Allman

[James E. Allman is Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Abstract

Evangelical discussions of ἱλάσκεσθαι tend to distinguish expiation, said to have a human focus, from propitiation, said to have a divine focus. This article responds to gaps in the major studies on ἱλάσκεσθαι by taking a fresh look at the English term “expiation” and the ἱλασκ- word group in both sacrificial and nonsacrificial contexts in the LXX and NT. The study finds that expiation and propitiation are bound up in each other: God’s merciful nature offers propitiation as a means of escaping his wrath by cleansing its cause. Expositors must be sensitive to a broader range of ideas represented by the ἱλασκ- word group.

* * *

Since at least the days of Socinus[1] the meaning of the word group surrounding the verb ἱλάσκομαι has been under debate. Traditionally translators gloss the word as “propitiate.” But especially since C. H. Dodd’s 1931 article, “ΙΛΑΣΚΕΣΘΑΙ, Its Cognates, Derivatives, and Synonyms, in the Septuagint,”[2] the debate has continued, and his argument has exerted strong influence on New Testament scholarship.[3] Major evangelical responses came from Roger Nicole and Leon Morris.[4] In these circles Morris has great influence. Indeed, in such circles it is common to distinguish the two ideas sharply by saying expiation focuses on humanity or on sin while propitiation focuses on God. Gomes explains, “Expiation [is] something that removes the barrier of sin. Specifically, expiation ‘implies the obliteration of sin through Christ’s atoning death’ (J. M. Gundry-Volf . . .). It can denote the cognate ideas of purgation, cleansing, etc. It is similar to propitiation, though in propitiation the emphasis is on the satisfaction of God’s wrath against sin.”[5] Pentecost can say, “When we come to consider this third great doctrinal word, propitiation, we are studying the God-ward aspect of the value of the death of Christ. While redemption was sinward, and reconciliation was manward, propitiation gives to us the third, or the God-ward aspect of the value of Christ’s death for us.”[6]

It is always appropriate in biblical studies to return to basic issues and restudy them. In the process one either reaffirms the foundations or finds reason to revise them. This article argues that Dodd’s and Morris’s positions each omit key data and that it is therefore time to examine again the meaning of ἱλάσκεσθαι and its related word group. The purpose is not to re-lay the foundational arguments, but rather to call for a rapprochement in the discussion. Pursuit of this goal begins by reviewing the arguments of Dodd and Morris. Then attention turns to the difficulty of defining “expiation,” and to a review of relevant usage of ἱλάσκεσθαι in the Septuagint, leading to some conclusions about the meaning of ἱλάσκεσθαι in the New Testament.

The Problem: The Contributions Of Dodd And Morris

Dodd’s Position On ἱλάσκεσθαι

Dodd says, “In classical Greek and in the Koine ἱλάσκεσθαι, ἐξιλάσκεσθαι, have regularly the meaning ‘placate’, ‘propitiate’, with a personal object.”[7] He identifies a secondary meaning of “expiate” with an impersonal object. Since he finds the terms ambiguous in classical Greek, he pursues the problem to clarify the meaning of the word group for the Septuagint and the New Testament.

He reviews three types of evidence to evaluate the meaning of the verb ἱλάσκεσθαι: (1) the various words used by the Septuagint to translate the verb כִּפֵּר; (2) the various Hebrew words that ἱλάσκεσθαι was used to translate; and (3) “the numerous instances where words of the ἱλάσκεσθαι class are used to translate כִּפֵּר and its derivatives.”[8]

Summarizing his argument about the meaning of the ἱλασκ- word group, Dodd indicates that

the general usage of words of the ἱλάσκεσθαι class to render כִּפֵּר and its derivatives corresponds with the conclusions we have drawn from their use to render other Hebrew words . . . viz., that the LXX translators did not regard כִּפֵּר (when used as a religious term) as conveying the sense of propitiating the Deity, but the sense of performing an act whereby guilt or defilement is removed, and accordingly rendered it by ἱλάσκεσθαι in this sense.[9]

Further he adds, “Thus Hellenistic Judaism, as represented by the LXX, does not regard the cultus as a means of pacifying the displeasure of the Deity, but as a means of delivering man from sin, and it looks in the last resort to God himself to perform that deliverance, thus evolving a meaning of ἱλάσκεσθαι strange to non-biblical Greek.”[10] Finally, he states, “The common rendering ‘propitiation’ is illegitimate here [i.e., 1 John 2:2] as elsewhere.”[11] The effect of this study can be seen in the Revised Standard Version rendering of Romans 3:25, which designates Jesus as the one “whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”

Part of Dodd’s motivation in arguing against propitiation is his commitment to a particular understanding of God: “Thus we take love, grace, and faithfulness, without hesitation, as describing—anthropomorphically, no doubt, in a sense—the personal attitude of God to men.”[12] It became necessary to expunge the concept of propitiation, “the idea underlying it . . . [being] characteristic of primitive religion.”[13] Consequently, the Greek expression in Romans 3:25 must be read as “a means by which guilt is annulled” with the proper gloss, expiation.[14] “The rendering propitiation is therefore misleading, for it suggests the placating of an angry God, and although this would be in accord with pagan usage, it is foreign to biblical usage.”[15]

Evidence he gives from Leviticus (and elsewhere) shows that the כפר word group and its translation by the ἱλασκ- word group does indeed communicate something approximating expiation. The usage of the noun כֹּפֶר to mean “ransom” and the usage of the verb in reference to both the sin or purification offering and the guilt or reparation offering (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13, 16, 18, 26) points in this direction. What is not clear is that there is no wrath of God impending on the sinner for breach of the Law.

Morris’s Position On ἱλάσκεσθαι

Morris commends significant advances that Dodd’s work achieved:

These are important conclusions and they are being increasingly accepted, for it is a relief to know that we have solid grounds for our conviction that the God of the Bible is not a Being who can be propitiated after the fashion of a pagan deity. That this point has been conclusively demonstrated is certain. The Bible writers have nothing to do with pagan conceptions of a capricious and vindictive deity, inflicting arbitrary punishments on offending worshippers, who must then bribe him back to a good mood by the appropriate offerings. Dodd’s important work makes this abundantly clear.[16]

Nonetheless he disputes the basic premises of Dodd’s work, for he is intent to show that the wrath of God is not some impersonal force in the world. Hughes comments on the unfortunate fact that people translate ὀργή by anger, but he also argues properly that “the holier love is, the more difficult is it to separate from it the idea of anger, or at any rate, indignation against sin.”[17] Certainly, the Hebrew Bible has multiple terms for God’s wrath. Hughes further points out, “It is begging the question to assert such anger is quite impersonal. It is not sin in the abstract, but the sinner sinning that calls for the resentment of divine wrath.”[18]

To make his case Morris begins with an examination of the wrath of God in the Old Testament. Then he turns to the use of ἱλάσκομαι in the Septuagint, which takes up the bulk of his chapter 5. There he reexamines Dodd’s evidence, including data that Dodd thought inappropriate to include, primarily non-theological usage of the verb. Another observer agrees with Morris that this is a weakness in Dodd’s argument: “Dodd was inclined to dismiss instances like Gen. 32:20 (21) and Prov. 16:14, where he admitted that the meaning was to appease or placate, since the usage here was not strictly religious and thus belonged to the non-cultic use (Dodd, op. cit., 92), but Hill (op. cit., 31) and Morris (op. cit., 161-67) argue that the non-cultic use is fundamental, since it enables us to ascertain the general, basic meaning of exhilaskomai.”[19]

In his conclusion to this part of his argument Morris makes a telling statement: “But it is important to note that the removal of this wrath is due not to man’s securing such an offering that God is impressed and relents, but to God Himself. This alone is sufficient to show that we are not dealing with the pagan idea when we speak of propitiation. Such a passage as Leviticus 17:11, ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls’, clearly indicates the position.”[20]

Chapter 6 in Morris’s book extends the argument to the New Testament following the same pattern, taking up first God’s wrath and then an examination of the word group represented by ἱλάσκομαι. Concluding his study of wrath and commenting on Romans 1:24, 26, and 28, Morris says, “It is true that sin has its consequences; but for St. Paul this does not take place apart from God, for His activity is to be discerned in those consequences. Indeed the whole of this section might be regarded as an expansion of the opening words, ‘For wrath of God is being continually revealed from heaven upon all impiety and unrighteousness of men.’ ”[21]

He takes up the three Greek words of this group that occur in the New Testament, ἱλαστήριον (Rom. 3:24; Heb. 9:5), ἱλάσκομαι (Luke 18:13; Heb. 2:7), and ἱλασμός (1 John 2:2; 4:10). Predictably, the course of the argument leads Morris to conclude that in all uses, propitiation is the best sense given the context.[22] In his lengthy conclusion to the study, he includes these crucial remarks: “If we are to retain the Christian conception of God with its insistence on the divine activity in the affairs of men, and the divine abhorrence of sin, it seems necessary to retain some such conception as propitiation. Certainly we must retain the idea of the wrath of God, for, as Edwyn Bevan has pointed out, the idea that God cannot be angry is neither Hebrew nor Christian, but something borrowed from Greek philosophy.”[23]

Conclusion

Dodd has made a good case that the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary can be used in the sense of expiation. Morris makes a good case that the appearance of this language, כפר and the ἱλασκ- word group, in the sacrificial laws of Israel finds its rationale in the wrath of God. But, as Morris further shows, there remains the “question of the meaning to be given to expiation.”[24] What is expiation intended to communicate?

Difficulty In Defining Expiation

If the translation “expiate” has any validity, it is important to determine what the English word means, since a key responsibility of exegesis is to find the right English expressions to explain the meaning of texts. Using a word that is traditional but is itself ambiguous is of no value to exposition. Morris, as we have seen, alerts us to the problem of definition.

The Meaning And Etymology Of The Term

The problem becomes evident when looking at major English dictionaries, and none can be more significant than the Oxford English Dictionary. That source gives seven senses to the word, of which six are significant here:

1. to avert (evil) by religious ceremonies . . .
2. To cleanse; purify (a person or city) from guilt or pollution by religious ceremonies . . .
3. To do away with or extinguish the guilt of one’s sin; to offer or serve as a propitiation for . . .
4. To pay the penalty of . . .
5. To make amends or reparation for . . .
6. to extinguish (a person’s rage) by suffering it to the full; to end (one’s sorrows, a suffering life) by death.[25]

If these are the options, then Dodd really does not accomplish much in proposing “expiation” as the proper translation for כפר and ἱλάσκομαι, since expiation can refer to averting wrath. On the other hand Morris’s rebuttal may not solve much, either. In a given context the word can mean whatever the context requires in the atonement field of meaning.

Not even the etymology of the term is exceedingly helpful. Most theological terms are derived from either Greek or Latin, in this case the root word pio and its derivative expio. The two major Latin dictionaries (Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, and Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary) agree substantially on the meaning of the two words.

The Oxford Latin Dictionary gives five senses for expio:

1. To make atonement to the gods for; b. to make amends, atone for (a wrong done to a person).
2. To take vengeance for, punish.
3. To purify from ritual uncleanness; b. (transf.) to cleanse thoroughly.
4. To avert (an omen, curse, or sim[ilar]) by expiating rites, to avert the misfortunes of.
5. To appease, propitiate (gods, spirits, their anger, etc.).[26]

The two major exegetical theological dictionaries, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, both give the same range of meanings for כפר and ἱλάσκομαι.

From these definitions one can see why there is not unanimity in the use of the word in English. One wonders, as well, why Dodd made such an issue of the meaning of propitiation, since expiation is amenable to the same interpretation. Yet this variety in meaning explains in some measure the variety in theological usage of the term expiate.

Usage In Theological Literature

Only representative examples are needed here. In the nineteenth century, Keil and Delitzsch could speak of expiation in varied ways. On the one hand, “That the smearing with blood was to be regarded as an act of expiation, is evident from the simple fact, that a hyssop-bush was used for the purpose (v. 22); for sprinkling with hyssop is never prescribed in the law, except in connection with purification in the sense of expiation (Lev. 14:49ff.; Num. 19:18, 19).”[27] On the other hand, “But the offerer of the sacrifice was covered, on account of his unholiness, from before the holy God, or, speaking more precisely, from the wrath of God and the manifestation of that wrath; that is to say, from the punishment which his sin had deserved, as we may clearly see from Gen. 32:20, and still more clearly from Ex. 32:30.”[28]

More recently, Gane, writing on Leviticus, said, “Because a purification offering uniquely emphasizes blood in this way, and application of blood to an altar signifies expiation (piel of כפר; cf. Lev 17:11), it is clear that a purification offering emphasizes the expiatory value of blood.”[29] About a passage dealing with an unsolved murder, Greengus wrote, “In the Bible (Deut 21:1-9), there is ‘guilt’ attached to the magistrates (elders and judges) of the nearest neighboring community. They remove this guilt by an expiation ceremony which includes the killing of a heifer at a nearby stream, the washing of hands, and an exculpatory declaration by the magistrates.”[30] Nicole distinguishes expiation and propitiation: “ ‘To expiate’ views sin as a failure to meet obligations, a failure for which a reparation, or satisfaction, must be provided. . . . ‘To propitiate’ reveals that sin awakens on the part of God a displeasure or anger which must be set aside, before God can and will deal with the sinner without taking judicial cognizance of his sin.”[31] On these lines, expiation can remove guilt, propitiate, and purify! While the meanings are clear in the contexts,[32] the word is not sufficiently definable to serve satisfactorily as an opposition to propitiation. Thus the standard distinction, given earlier, is inadequate.[33]

LXX Usage Of The ἱλάσκεσθαι Word Group

This unsatisfactory state of the question calls for a reexamination of the basic evidence. The goal here is to see whether a hard and fast distinction can be maintained between propitiation and expiation and then in light of the study to propose emendations appropriate to the evidence. Before entering on this review, we stop to affirm the strength of Morris’s case for belief in the personal wrath of God. This is a given; and because it is a given, we assume that propitiation is a valid theological conception, though perhaps in need of broadening. We also strongly affirm with Dodd God’s deeply loving and merciful nature. The question that occupies attention here is whether the term propitiation is broad enough to be a consistent gloss for ἱλάσκομαι.

It is unfortunate that the word group is used so infrequently in the New Testament, appearing only six times (Luke 18:13; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 9:5; 1 John 2:2; 4:10), because its rarity makes it harder to understand. But it is far more frequent in the LXX, represented by seven different words: ἐξίλασις (twice), ἐξιλάσκομαι (105 times), ἐξίλασμα (twice), ἐξιλασμός (16 times), ἱλάσκομαι (12 times), ἱλασμός (6 times), and ἱλαστήριον (28 times).[34] This study does not intend to revisit the well-established conclusions argued by both Morris and Nicole. The aim is to see if the word group is used in contexts that add connotations that the denotation may obscure.[35]

The word group in the LXX appears in two major settings, sacrificial and nonsacrificial. The nonsacrificial uses have two sub-categories: to appease and to ransom.

Nonsacrificial Uses Of ἱλάσκεσθαι And Related Terms

To appease. The first, and most obvious, place where ἐξιλάσκεσθαι means “to appease” is Genesis 32:21. Jacob, returning to his homeland, must meet Esau, who is coming with four hundred men. Within the limits of the story, this cannot bode well for Jacob. The last thing he heard from Esau twenty years earlier was his plan to kill his cheating brother (27:42-43). Consequently, in 32:7 and 21, Jacob concocts another scheme to receive God’s blessing and entrance to the land by sending waves of animals to Esau as a מִנְחָה, a tribute offering (32:19; LXX, δῶρα).[36] In verse 21 he expresses his purpose: “I shall propitiate [ἐξιλάσομαι; MT, אֲכַפְּרָה] his face with the presents . . . perhaps he will accept my face” (NET Septuagint). By the ἐξίλασις he hoped to win a welcome from Esau. Jacob’s purpose was not to share his bounty from the Lord but to keep Esau from killing him: “Perhaps he will welcome me.” Thus the sense “appease” is the necessary point in this context. Certainly Morris and Nicole have already argued this. But it is a kind of groundwork that Dodd rejected, since it is a nontheological usage. Yet this sort of nontheological use provides the foundation for understanding the theological usage of the word group. A similar sense is found in Proverbs 16:14, where a wise man knows how to “appease” the wrath of a king.[37]

To ransom or bribe. A second sense of the ἱλάσκεσθαι word group is “ransom” or “bribe.” Exodus 30:15 and Psalm 49:8 (LXX 48:8) are the most important. The first reference occurs in a context where Israel is preparing the contribution for the tabernacle. They must count the adult males and collect a half shekel from each as a ransom for their lives: ἐξιλάσασθαι [MT, לְכַפֵּר] περὶ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν. Durham comments that the passage assumes “that such a head count might result in harm, and harm brought by Yahweh unless the atonement sum was paid. Given such a possibility, why would the count be made in the first place? And how would the payment of a half-shekel a head, a payment that sounds very much like a bribe, avert Yahweh’s anger?”[38] Since God commands the head count and the payment, “bribe” would seem to be the wrong word. “Ransom” fits the context better and is certain because of verse 12, which uses λύτρα τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ to describe the gift.

Similar, but in a substantially different field of meaning, is Psalm 49:8 (LXX 48:8). Here the LXX translation departs somewhat from the MT, but the important issue is the word ἐξίλασμα that translates כֹּפֶר. Craigie calls the psalm “A Wisdom Psalm on Life and Death.”[39] It discusses what might deliver someone from death and determines that no ransom can ever suffice to redeem a life from death, even using the Greek verb λυτρόω to convey the idea. So the meaning “ransom” is well established.

The only passage that might fit into the category of “bribe” is 1 Samuel 12:3 where Samuel, defending his own integrity (in the face of the injustice of his sons) called Israel to testify whether he had ever acted unjustly toward anyone. In the list of injustices he mentioned that he had never taken an ἐξίλασμα (MT, כֹּפֶר). The obvious goal of כֹּפֶר or ἐξίλασμα in such a context is to influence decisions in the giver’s favor.

Sacrificial Uses Of ἱλάσκεσθαι And Related Terms

The sacrificial uses of ἱλάσκεσθαι go well beyond the mere distinction between propitiation and expiation. While they clearly include the concept of averting wrath, they also add other dimensions of connotation to the word group. Herrmann clearly recognizes a propitiatory role to sacrifice, for he says, “It is naturally perceived, of course, that sacrifice is pleasing and acceptable to God, and that it is thus calculated to propitiate.”[40] But, in line with the argument here, he also sees what he calls a loose sense of expiation: “There can be no doubt, however, that expiation is linked with the manipulation of blood. This blood is the blood of animals. In particular, although not exclusively, there are two specific offerings, of which the one, םאָשָׁ, is much less prominent than the other, חַטָּאת, This must be our starting-point.”[41] So this material is not really new, but it has not received the attention it deserves. It remains now to study three kinds of usage for the word to see how context affects its meaning.

Ἱλάσκεσθαι that results in forgiveness. In four places the word group based on ἱλάσκεσθαι translates the Hebrew word סלח, “to forgive.” In Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Temple, the New English Translation of the Septuagint translates the key word as “grant expiation” in 2 Chronicles 6:30. Perhaps this is the way an ancient Greek would have understood the word. Yet ἱλάσῃ does translate the Hebrew word “forgive,” and for the purposes of this study it is important to consider why the translators believed this was an appropriate word in this place.

No one should suggest that the word is simply reduced to the meaning of the Hebrew, but it cannot be separated (at the translator’s level) from the meaning of the Hebrew. Furthermore, סלח appears forty-seven times in the Old Testament. Of those the LXX translates twenty-eight with a word from the word group ἱλάσκεσθαι (very commonly ἵλεως εἶναι or γίνεσθαι [17 times], ἐξιλάσεσθαι, ἱλάσκεσθαι, ἑξιλατεύειν twice, or its related word ἱλατεύειν[42]). Something suggested this word group as appropriate for the translators to use in such a context. It may be treated as a metonymy of the cause. The propitious attitude of God leads him to forgive sin. This will adequately explain most of such usage.

So in Psalm 25:11 (LXX 24:11), with סלח and ἱλάσκομαι, David can plead with God for forgiveness “for the sake of your name, O Lord.” So also the psalmist at a festival in Jerusalem, knowing his own sinfulness, pleads for God to listen to his prayers because “with you is forgiveness” (Ps. 130:4; LXX 129:4). Even confronted with his sin the psalmist can hope in a God who is favorably disposed to his people. It is interesting that Isaiah 54:10 uses ἵλεως to translate the Hebrew verb רחם, a probable support for the position taken here. Finally, Lamentations 3:42 is a departure from the pattern seen above, and yet it ends up supporting our conclusion. God has delayed his wrath at Jerusalem’s sin so long that he cannot justly delay any longer. Thus, he has not been favorable toward the people to forgive their sin (סָלָחְתָּ לֹא and οὐχ ἱλάσθης). Yet even within the context, God’s covenant mercy remains. At the heart of this chapter is the great affirmation, curiously omitted in the Septuagint, “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness” (3:22-23).

These are not the only places where forgiveness is likely in view,[43] but enough has been said to show that the word group can go beyond the “simple” idea of propitiation to its effects on humanity or on human sin, one of which is forgiveness. Further, while Dodd acknowledged this kind of usage, he did not take seriously the implication of forgiveness relating to the wrath of God.[44] Forgiveness entails the removal of punishment that would otherwise justly fall upon the forgiven. Now, as Dodd pointed out, the language of forgiveness is often couched in the passive (thus, the niphal of סלח). Yet this observation need not lead, and in light of the total context of the Law of Moses, should not lead to the conclusion that the punishment is the operation of an impersonal force embedded in creation. The divine passive is a well recognized category of Hebrew (and indeed of Greek) grammar.[45] In light of all this and summarizing in the words of Michael Bird, “We might say that when sin is expiated, then God’s wrath is propitiated. When sin is removed, God’s wrath is appeased.”[46]

Ἰλάσκεσθαι in the אשם sacrifice. The word םאָשָׁ is rightly translated “guilt.”[47] As the verb is used, it can refer either to objective guilt, incurred when an infraction is committed, or to subjective guilt that one becomes aware of at some later time (Lev. 4:22-23).[48] It may be useful to define guilt at this point. Berkhof has a helpful discussion:

The word “guilt” expresses the relation which sin bears to justice or, as the older theologians put it, to the penalty of the law. He who is guilty stands in a penal relation to the law. We can speak of guilt in a twofold sense, namely, as reatus culpae and as reatus poenae. The former, which Turretin calls ‘potential guilt,’ is the intrinsic moral ill-desert of an act or state. This is of the essence of sin and is an inseparable part of its sinfulness. . . . The usual sense, however, in which we speak of guilt in theology, is that of reatus poenae. By this is meant desert of punishment, or obligation to render satisfaction to God’s justice for self-determined violation of the law.[49]

These two elements of guilt both function in the usage of םאָשָׁ. When one commits one of the sins for which the sacrifice םאָשָׁ is necessary, one becomes guilty. Such a view is not reflected in the English Standard Version in Leviticus 4:13-14: “If the whole congregation of Israel sins unintentionally and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they do any one of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, and they realize their guilt [וְאָשֵׁמוּ], (13) when the sin which they have committed becomes known [ וְנוֹדְעָה] , the assembly shall offer a bull from the herd for a sin offering and bring it in front of the tent of meeting.” Verse 14 makes it clear that וְאָשֵׁמוּ in verse 13 cannot mean, “realize guilt.” There it must mean “become guilty,” that is, subject to blame (reatus culpae) and penalty (reatus poenae). But in verses 22 and 23 the subjective dimension enters, for verse 23 offers an alternative means (אוֹ) of knowledge. So in verse 22 subjective guilt is in view.

The distinction that Berkhof makes helps in understanding what happens in the םאָשָׁ sacrifice. The defining nature of the offenses requiring the םאָשָׁ is that by them the offender has caused someone a loss.[50] And the distinctive nature of the sacrificial ritual is that the offender must make restitution, which also required a twenty-percent fine.[51] The restitution, though, was not by itself sufficient; the offender must offer a sacrifice so that there might be forgiveness (Lev. 5:16, 18; 19:22). The forgiveness, in light of the nature of guilt and the significance of the root אשם, would include both reatus culpae, the liability to blame, and reatus poenae, the liability to punishment. It would be primarily subjective for those who trust the promise of God, the removal of the sense of blame for the infraction. For the unbeliever the forgiveness is still provided, but in that case it would be the cancellation of objective blame before the law. What is important here, then, is that the use of ἐξιλάσκεσθαι in this sacrifice implies both the removal of the need to bear the penalty and the removal of wrath, both divine (because the penalty is paid) and human (because the challenge to the conscience is removed). Thus we have both expiation and propitiation in the context for the word group. This is likely what Hebrews 9:13-14 describes.[52]

Ἱλάσκεσθαι in the “Sin” Offering. Especially important for understanding the usage of the ἱλάσκεσθαι word group is the “sin” offering. Like the םאָשָׁ the name חַטָּאת needs consideration. Milgrom argues, “It has long been recognized that the biblical terms for good and bad behavior also connote their respective reward and punishment.”[53] Thus the appropriate name for this sacrifice, in Hebrew, is חַטָּאת, but the translation is open to question. Milgrom states, “Lĕḥaṭṭāʾt is a piʿel formation derived from the verb ḥiṭṭēʾ, which is synonymous with ṭihar ‘purify’ (e.g., Ezek 43:23-26) and kipper ‘purge’ (Ezek 43:20, 26). The ḥaṭṭāʾt, therefore, is to be rendered ‘purification offering.’ ”[54]

The Hebrew Bible uses the word group in a large number of contexts, in dealing with childbirth (Lev. 12:7-8), the ritual for the restoration of the person with a serious skin disease (14:18-21, etc.),[55] bodily excretions (15:15, 30), in the ordination of the priesthood, preparing the altar for use (Lev. 8:15), and in rituals for the Nazirite (Num. 6:11). Yet almost one sixth of the uses (20 of 117 occurrences) occur either in Leviticus 4 (the “sin” or purification offering, 4 times) and 16 (16 times, the Day of Atonement where the sin or purification offering is foremost). It appears, additionally, in the important section Leviticus 12-15 (the purity regulations) a further 11 times so that more than a quarter of all the Old Testament uses of this word group appears in a restricted portion of Leviticus, while Leviticus as a whole accounts for over forty percent of its appearances. Clearly, this material is central to thinking about the connotations of the word group.

Ἱλάσκεσθαι In The Day Of Atonement (Lev. 16) [56]

Since the baseline for the word group is propitiation, it is surprising that, in some places in Leviticus 16, removing wrath is the obvious point of ἱλάσκεσθαι. Any wrath in the passage would arise from unclean things, wrongs, sins of the people and thus imperil the people. This is the specific point of verse 30, with its use of ἐξιλάσεται connected with cleansing. One could argue, rightly, that God’s wrath toward the people, unpropitiated, would cause him to withdraw from the holy place. Yet something crucial in verse 16 focuses the work of ἱλάσκεσθαι on the holy place.

Verse 16 makes the rationale for ἱλάσκεσθαι the uncleannesses and iniquities of the people, and verses 18-19 add a description of extensive sprinkling of blood. Important in all this are the repeated references to the sacrifice for sins and the allied sprinkling of blood.

Here it is necessary to take a backward glance at Leviticus 4. The ritual of the purification offering is not unique. It includes the laying on of hands, the gathering and manipulation of blood, burning appropriate pieces on the altar, and the outcome of God’s acceptance. Some of these similarities are even mentioned in the text (Lev. 4:10, 15, 24, 26, 31, 35; note that the blood of the peace, or fellowship, offering is poured out, זרק,57 around the altar in 3:2, 8). About sprinkling, 16:19 stipulates that the priest must sprinkle blood on the altar in order to cleanse it from the Israelites’ uncleannesses. Sprinkling cleanses what is defiled. Thus the sin offering is well called the purification offering.

This accounts for the use of ἱλάσκεσθαι language in the Day of Atonement ritual. The uncleannesses and iniquities of Israel were “powerful enough to penetrate the shrine itself.”[58] Only successive purification offerings, one for the priesthood (whose own uncleanness naturally invaded the holy place), and one for the whole people (see 4:13-21), who though they were lay people, nonetheless as the whole congregation they impel their uncleanness into the innermost shrine. The whole ritual of the Day of Atonement to accomplish ἱλασμός, then, was aimed at purifying people, priesthood, and shrine from all contagion of sin. This is the precise point of Leviticus 16:30, a kind of summary of the purpose of the day. What the priest did (ἐξιλάσεται) was “to cleanse you from all your sins before the Lord, and you shall be clean.”

The outcome of this discussion is to identify another connotation of the word group ἱλάσκεσθαι, “to purify” (one of the meanings of the word expiate). So in a sense Dodd was right. Expiation is an aspect of ἱλάσκεσθαι, for in order to remove the wrath of God from his people, and by extension, from his dwelling (so Morris and Nicole were right, too), it is necessary to remove the effect of the cause of wrath, in this case Israel’s contagious uncleanness that penetrated to what was otherwise the most inaccessible symbol of God’s holiness, the holy place.

Implications For The New Testament

The New Testament uses three words from the ἱλασκ- group in six places, ἱλάσκομαι, Luke 18:13; Hebrews 2:17; ἱλασμός, 1 John 2:2 and 4:10; and ἱλαστήριον, Romans 3:25 and 9:5. When the publican prays in Luke 18, ὁ θεός, ἱλάσθητί μοι τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ, he is likely pleading for forgiveness.[59] But smitten deeply as he is about his sin, he likely senses the impossibility of making restitution (contrast Zacchaeus, ironically named “the pure one”).[60] Thus he may have in mind something like the need (and perhaps the impossibility) to make proper restitution.

Hebrews 2:17, in speaking about dealing with the sin of the people (εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ), surely includes the forgiveness of sin.[61] But it also resides in a passage where priestly language is present (2:10, τελειόω, the normal word for expressing, in Exodus and Leviticus, the concept of ordination, and in v. 11 consecration language, ἁγιάζω). Since priestly status is part of the position of the recipients (the intended audience) of Hebrews (13:10, 15-16), it is not improper to think of Jesus’s ἱλασμός as involving cleansing, fitting his people for their priestly service.

The noun ἱλασμός occurs in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10. The purpose of 1 John, though widely discussed, appears to be to reassure believers whose faith is wavering because of the departure of some who had turned out to be false teachers. They had been trusted but were shown to be false by John’s teaching, especially concerning the humanity of Jesus and the proper role of love and obedience in the Christian life. The people who remained were now confused about their own spiritual condition. Trusted members of the community are shown to be false; where does that leave the people who formerly trusted them? There is even indication within the book that the “little children” who remained after the schism might have had some of the same traits as were found in the false teachers (3:18-20). John writes to assure them that Jesus is a sufficient ἱλασμός for any sin, indeed for the sin of the world (2:2). What is required, initially, is trust in the work of the Savior.

But for the present study 1 John 4:10 may be even more important, for it addresses precisely one of Dodd’s arguments against the concept of propitiation. How could God “become favorable” because of sacrifice, when he already was favorable before? The effect of our study is to demonstrate that all divine commands for sacrifice came from a loving God in the first place. The righteous justice of God must impose penalty for sin. It is not merely the way God created the world. It is the nature of God that he must justly destroy whatever contaminates his holiness. But the equally merciful nature of God requires him to offer escape to the objects of his wrath.[62] Thus God’s love sends God’s Son to release God’s creation from the peril of God’s wrath, and it is by his work in ἱλασμός that he accomplishes all this. The false teachers had renounced the apostolic teaching about Christ, for they were not of God, but the readers (the implied audience of 1 John) are of God and can be certain that any flaws in their lives are dealt with by Jesus’s work. For believers, the penalty is paid (expiation) and the wrath of God is averted. They now live in the favor of God. “In Christ, God himself absorbs the destructive consequences of sin.”[63]

The last of the terms, ἱλαστήριον, occurs in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5. In the latter verse the reference is clearly to the “mercy seat” in the Holy of Holies and can therefore be passed by without further comment. But Romans 3:25 would demand a great deal of discussion, whether the word should be a reference to the ministry of Jesus as the mercy seat, the place where atonement is accomplished, or as a metonymy for what is accomplished there, namely propitiation.[64] Both views end at the same place, though. Jesus has accomplished what is needed to deliver us from our sin. The long preceding passage in Romans has shown that our sin has exposed us to God’s wrath, both temporal (1:18-32) and eschatological (2:6-8), with the capstone being 3:20-21, that all the world is held guilty before God.

Now the mere word ἱλαστήριον, in light of this context, could pointedly refer to the removal of wrath, and that it does. It does more, though. For wrath is not the only datum in the context. The work of Jesus designated ἱλαστήριον is accomplished by his blood, or received by faith in his blood. Both are possible, and both, as Morris argues, have the sacrificial death of Jesus in view. The death of Jesus, though, is not a flat concept. It is textured and contoured by the Old Testament teaching on sacrifices, for there were five of them that God gave to Israel to teach them about his work of salvation. Jesus’s death accomplishes all that all five of the sacrifices accomplished, at minimum. If that is true, which of the sacrifices had blood most prominent? Was it not the purification offering? We should not argue here for a one-dimensional exposition of the blood of Christ, but rely on the rich tapestry of ideas that God included in the Levitical offerings. If blood is a sign of life violently taken, as it is, it can equally be, and all the more readily so, a reference to the purifying work of Jesus in light of the concentration of ἱλάσκεσθαι and blood language in Leviticus 4 and 16. For God to be favorable to sinners, he must solve the problem that he, a God more merciful than we ever dared imagine, caused for himself in creating people who could fall into sin and thus into liability to his wrath. He must remove the entailments of his wrath, the objective just penalty required for any and all sin. He must remove the subjective defilement of his own dwelling (Heb. 9:22-24) and of humanity too so that he may enter into fellowship with them. All of this is expiation. The result of this work is propitiation. God is now favorable toward the forgiven and cleansed, loving them even as he loves his Son Jesus (John 17:23).

Conclusions

If this is a sound study of the issues, we must jettison the hard distinction between expiation and propitiation. The contexts in which ἱλάσκεσθαι is used require that the word group assume more than removal of wrath. The contexts tie the word group to three ideas. First, ἱλάσκεσθαι includes forgiveness because God has removed his wrath through a substituted penalty. Second, God has removed guilt and personal shame for an infraction by cleansing our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. And finally, he has accomplished purification, not only of the human conscience, as important as that is. He has purified heaven itself from any stain on his reputation for being lax with sin. We do not suggest here that all three ideas are always present where the word group occurs, but any of them may be, and we must be sensitive to these ideas in our exposition.

Notes

1. Roger Nicole, “C. H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation,” Westminster Theological Journal 17, no. 2 (May 1955): 122.
2. Journal of Theological Studies 32 (1930-31): 352-60. He reissued the study in a chapter titled “Atonement,” in his book The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935), 82-95.
3. “Dodd’s arguments have convinced many that the NT does not think of Jesus’ death as appeasing God’s anger; rather, God, through Jesus, deals with and nullifies sin and its effects” (C. M. Tuckett, “Atonement in the NT,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 519).
4. Nicole, “C. H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation,” 117-57; Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955). Citations in this article come from the third edition, 1965. His discussion of the issues appears in chapters 5 “Propitiation (1)” and 6 “Propitiation (2)” on pages 144-213.
5. Alan W. Gomes, “Glossary 1: Technical Terminology,” in William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3rd ed., ed. Alan W. Gomes (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2003), 955. See also Culver’s discussion, in Robert Duncan Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical (Ross-shire, UK: Mentor, 2005), 554.
6. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things Which Become Sound Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 95.
7. Dodd, “ΙΛΑΣΚΕΣΘΑΙ,” 352. A standard example of this is Iliad 1:93-100.
8. Ibid., 356.
9. Ibid., 359.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., 360.
12. C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1932), 32. Erickson comments on a point that Dodd omitted: “While the word [ἱλάσκεσθαι] is seldom used in the Septuagint with ‘God’ as its direct object, it must also be noted that it is never used in the Old Testament with the word sin as its direct object” (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 828).
13. Dodd, Romans, 78.
14. Ibid., 78-79.
15. Ibid., 79.
16. Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 148.
17. H. Maldwyn Hughes, What Is the Atonement? A Study in the Passion of God in Christ (London: James Clarke, 1924), 51, cited by Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 149.
18. Hughes, What Is the Atonement?, 51-52.
19. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Moisés Silva, s.v. “ἱλάσκομαι” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 2:536.
20. Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 177.
21. Ibid., 184. His point in suggesting that expiate is an unclear term is that “as commonly used the term seems to signify the removal of sin or guilt, but neither of these is a thing which can be objectively removed.” In fact, as used in our literature, both biblical and theological, the term is unclear.
22. Once again, it is important to realize that our purpose is not to survey all the evidence, but to review the discussion and further it. Below, the section titled “LXX Usage of the ἱλάσκεσθαι Word Group” entertains the evidence in new connections.
23. Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 212.
24. Ibid., 211. The problem that Morris sees here is not with the definition of the word itself, but with its use in a nonrelational context. However, he has spoken more truth than his context required. A problem of defining expiation does exist that calls for exploration.
25. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), s.v. “expiate,” 1:931, column 433. Other dictionaries are less exhaustive, but they give similar or related explanations of the word.
26. P. G. W. Glare, ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 1:650.
27. Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 1:328-29, emphasis added.
28. Ibid., 506-507, emphasis added.
29. Roy E. Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 62, emphasis added.
30. Samuel Greengus, “Law: Biblical and ANE Law,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:249.
31. Nicole, “Dodd,” 120.
32. “Usage of the word כִּפֶּר demonstrates that the meaning is ‘to expiate, pacify, atone,’ and should not be translated ‘to cover.’ Although there is some debate whether the emphasis should be on propitiation or expiation, the effect of these sacrifices is clear—by offering them the worshiper found forgiveness. The idea to be drawn from Leviticus, then, is that these sacrifices were efficacious” (Allen P. Ross, “The Biblical Method of Salvation: A Case for Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., ed. John S. Feinberg [Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988], 175).
33. See again Gomes, “Glossary 1: Technical Terminology,” 955.
34. The word counts are taken from Accordance. The words ἱλατεύω (used once) and ἵλεως (34 times) in phrases with either εἰμί or γίνομαι can be added to the list. These last two counts come from J. Lust, J. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003).
35. Hence, for example, we will not attempt to address the problem of the meaning of ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3:25.
36. “Abigail’s present is a bᵉrāḵá (1 Sam. 25:27), and Jacob’s is a minḥá. One significant difference between a minḥá and a bᵉrāḵá is that the former is given to another only by one who is in some sense subservient (Jacob to Esau, the worshiper to God)” (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Accordance electronic ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 325).
37. In a few other places the verb ἐξιλάσκασθαι translates words that would mean appease, for example in Zechariah 7:2 and 8:22, where the verb translates Hebrew לְחַלּוֹת and the lexicon gives the meaning “b) to appease God Ex 32:11; 1S 13:12; 1K 13:62K 13:4; Jr 26:19; Zech 7:2; 8:21; Mal 1:9; Ps 119:58; Da 9:13; 2C 33:12” (Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, Johann Jakob Stamm, et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.v. “חלה,” 1:317).
38. John I. Durham, Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary. Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. (Waco: Word Books, 1992), 402.
39. Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, Word Biblical Commentary, Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 356.
40. J. Herrmann, “ἱλάσκομαι, ἱλασμός,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1974), 3:305.
41. Ibid.
42. These last two words do not appear in the New Testament, but they appear three times in the LXX. Both by usage and by apparent etymology, though, they belong to this study. See Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. Henry Stuart Jones (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996).
43. We might extend the study to Leviticus 19:22; Numbers 15:28 (a peculiarly interesting passage that follows on Israel’s great failure at Kadesh Barnea); 2 Kings 5:18 (Naaman!); 24:4 (the sinfulness of Jehoiachin); 2 Chronicles 30:18 (Hezekiah’s irregular Passover); Psalms 65:4 (LXX 64:4) and 78:38 (LXX 77:38).
44. The only person who does סלח in the Hebrew Bible is God (“forgive, pardon, alw. with Y. as subj., sin as obj” [Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. D. J. A. Clines (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), s.v. סלח]). This is not an impersonal wrath that is being assuaged. It is the wrath of God, which only God can remove.
45. Waltke can say, “Section B is framed by ‘was firmly established’ (1 Kings 2:12, 46b), a divine passive in Hebrew grammar” (Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], 705). He further comments, “The parallel, ‘you caused me to trust’ (Hiphil) shows the incomplete passive I was cast (hošlaktî, Hophal) as the typical divine passive: God is the agent” (Bruce K. Waltke, James M. Houston, and Erika Moore, The Psalms as Christian Worship: A Historical Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 403).
46. Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 406-7.
47. Thus the first meaning of the word is given as “1. guilt Gn 26:10; Jr 51:5; Ps 68:22; Pr 14:9” (Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.v. “םשָׁאָ” 1:96).
48. Levine wants to avoid this implication. In his note on verse 22, he translates “a chieftain who incurs guilt” (Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, JPS Torah Commentary, Accordance electronic ed. [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 24). However, verse 23 nearly requires the sense given above, that he becomes aware of his guilt, since the alternative (אוֹ) is that “his sin is made known to him.” Earlier in the same chapter, Levine comments on “and they realize their guilt” and says, “Rather, ‘and thereby incur guilt.’ The precise sense of ve-’ashemu here and of the singular form ve-’ashem in verses 22, 27 and in 5:2, 4, 17, and 23, has been the subject of extensive scholarly argument. These forms all occur in the transitional verses of chapter 4, following descriptions of various hypothetical offenses. When certain transgressions occur—ve-’ashemu. If subsequently the offenses become known, special rites are to be performed. And so the entire process of ritual expiation hinges on this pivotal verb” (p. 22). This is likely correct for verse 13, given its immediate context, but not for verses 22-23. Ross seems to agree: “At times, if they were not sure an offense or a fraud had actually been committed, some people with a sensitive conscience might bring a reparation offering just to be sure” (Ross, Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of Leviticus [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002], 147).
49. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938), 245-46.
50. Ross, Holiness to the Lord, 147.
51. For the noun the second and fourth meanings given are “2. restitution Nu 5:7f; . . . 4. gift of atonement, compensation 1S 6:3f, 8, 17; Is 53:10” (Koehler, et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.v. “םאָשָׁ,” 1:96). See also Leviticus 5:16.
52. For a fuller discussion of the םאָשָׁ offering, see especially Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 103-13; and Ross, Holiness to the Lord, 146-54. On Hebrews 9:14, see William L. Lane, Hebrews 9-13, Word Biblical Commentary, Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 240-41; B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews with Notes and Essays, Westcott’s Commentaries on the Gospel of John, Ephesians, Hebrews, and the Epistles of John, Zondervan/Accordance electronic ed. (London, 1903; electronic ed., Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 2006), 262.
53. Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, ed. Jacob Neusner (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), 3. The same discussion occurs in Milgrom’s commentary on Leviticus, Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; Yale University Press, 2008), 339.
54. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 232. Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, 20, gives the same interpretation. On the privative piel see also Ronald J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed., rev. John C. Beckman (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 146.
55. “Confirmation that כפר for the offerer in 14:19 results in the change of his state to one of purity (root טהר) is found in identification of the offerer as הַמִּטַּהֵר, ‘the one who is being purified.’ Compare the next verse, where the summary formula following instructions for accompanying burnt and grain offerings that complete the same ritual complex is: וְטָהֵר הַכֹּהֵן עָלָיו וְכִפֶּר ‘And the priest shall make expiation for him. Then he shall be pure’ (v. 20)” (Gane, Cult and Character, 115).
56. While the verb is prominent in Leviticus 16, the noun ἱλαστήριον, traditionally translated “mercy seat,” appears seven times (Lev. 16:2, 13-15). But clearly the verb takes preeminence.
57. BDB glosses this word as meaning “to toss or throw (in a volume), scatter abundantly” (Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907), s.v. “זרק,” 284). It is, though, sometimes translated “sprinkle.” The word in Leviticus 4 is נזה, which one can do with one’s finger. It is not clear why sometimes God instructed the pouring and sometimes the sprinkling of blood, but see Gane, Cult and Character, 62.
58. Ross, Holiness to the Lord, 132.
59. So John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, Word Biblical Commentary, Accordance/ Thomas Nelson electronic ed. (Waco: Word Books, 1993), 877. See also François Bovon, Luke 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9:51-19:27, ed. Helmut Koester, trans. Donald S. Deer, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013), 550: “It suggests more the end of vindictiveness and the reestablishment of a relationship than compassion. That was also the purpose of the morning expiatory sacrifice offered in the temple: to have God hold out the offer to persons to rejoin his people and benefit from his pardon.”
60. Cf. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.vv. “זַךְ,” “זכה,” and “זַכַּי,” “innocent, pure,” 1:269.
61. “The ‘propitiation’ acts on that which alienates God and not on God whose love is unchanged throughout” (Brooke Foss Westcott, ed., The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays, 3rd ed., Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament [London: Macmillan, 1903], 58).
62. These concepts may seem foreign because we have never known a genuinely righteous wrath in our own experience. In any case, even the best of human thinking about God only approximates, though approximating truly, the actual nature of God. “Wrath” may not be the best word, but human language may not have a better. It is a wrath born, of all things, of love. This appears to be the sense of the Hebrew concept of קנאה.
63. Stephen H. Travis, “Wrath of God: New Testament,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 997.
64. For a fuller discussion of the meaning of ἱλαστήριον, see C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 1:214-18. See also the generally accurate discussion in Bruce A. Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1997), 179-80.