Iii. The Wrath Of God In The Old Testament

II. THE ἱλάσoµα WORD-GROUP IN NON-BIBLICAL GREEK

There is considerable agreement that this word-group denotes ‘propitiation’, ‘appeasement’, etc., in pagan usage. This point of view was put strongly by G. Smeaton when he said of ἱλασµός: ‘The uniform acceptation of the word in classical Greek, when applied to the Deity, is the means of appeasing God, or of averting His anger; and not a single instance to the contrary occurs in the whole Greek literature.‘²⁶⁸ Since his day our knowledge, particularly of Hellenistic Greek, has increased immensely, but Moulton and Milligan assure us that in Hellenistic as in classical Greek the word group refers to placating. They comment that ἱλάσoµα means ‘“render propitious to oneself” c. acc. of the person as in classical Greek’,²⁶⁹ and they go on to note ‘A similar use of the compound ἐξλάσoµα, which extends to the LXX’.

Many similar citations could be made, but this would be superfluous, as the point is hardly disputed. Whatever may be the biblical usage there can be no doubts as to the prevailing use in all non-biblical writings. But the pagan use is said to be not quite unvarying. Thus C. H. Dodd says: ‘In classical Greek and in the Koine ἱλάσεσθα, ἐξλάσεσθα, have regularly the meaning “placate”, “propitiate”, with a personal object. As a secondary meaning ἐξλάσεσθα also bears the sense “expiate”, with an impersonal object’.²⁷⁰ In similar vein is Büchsel’s statement that ’It would be difficult to imagine that ἐξλάσoµα would be chosen as translation of kipper if it hitherto had only signified make gracious. Therefore it is easily conjectured that ἐξλάσoµα and ἱλάσoµα acquired the meaning, expiate, atone’.²⁷¹

It is noteworthy that Büchsel uses very guarded language. He gives it as his opinion only (‘it is easily conjectured’) that there was a trend away from crude ideas of propitiation. But he cites no specific passages. For the study of ἱλάσoµα, etc. this is important. Even a man who thinks that men were moving away from early, crude ideas can find no instance wherein ἱλάσoµα, etc., reflect this trend. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that, while the general trend Büchsel speaks of may have been in evidence, yet the word-group under consideration was not used to express it. In other words, while men may have been modifying their ideas about the nature of the gods, when they used ἱλάσoµα, etc., it was to convey the older thought of propitiation rather than some later development. Failing specific examples of the newer meaning such must be held to be the usage.

Dodd urges two passages in favour of the meaning ‘expiation’, namely Plato, Laws, 862 c, and the Men Tyrannus inscription. The former passage reads τὸ ἀπoíνoς ἐξλασθν τoĩς δρσν αì πάσχoυσν ἑάστας τν βλάψεων ἐ δαϕoρᾶς εἰς ϕλíαν ἀεì περατέoν αθστάνα τoĩς νόµoς. The writer is saying that the legislator must endeavour to restore good relations by payment of indemnity for injuries, and the question at issue is whether τὸ ἀπoíνoς ἐξλασθέν refers to expiation of a crime or to appeasement of a person. The context seems to put it beyond doubt that a person is indicated.²⁷² The passage could, perhaps, be interpreted of an expiation; but the most natural exegesis sees in it the acceptance by the wronged party of a compensatory payment, by virtue of which his anger against the one who has injured him is soothed. Büchsel sums up the possibilities well when he comments ‘... one could understand ἐξλασθέν as expiated in so far as the lawbreaker has become guiltless by means of the compensation which he has paid the wronged person; but it is better (understood) as: comprehended as appeased, in so far as the wronged person is brought by the compensation which settles the account to the abandonment of his wrath against the offender, so that the two can come to a state of friendship with one another’.²⁷³ It seems impossible, then, to maintain that ἐξλασθέν here clearly means ‘expiate’; the most that can be said is that such an interpretation is not altogether excluded.

The Men Tyrannus inscription gives stronger support to the upholders of the expiation theory inasmuch as sin is the object of the verb, the relevant part of the inscription reading ἁµαρτíαν ὀϕεíλετω Mηνì Tυράννῳ ἣν oὐ µὴ δύνητα ἐξελάσασθα. This accusative of the sin is unique outside biblical writers, which leads us to the conclusion that it is most probably an accusative of general reference.²⁷⁴ In view of the otherwise unvarying usage of pagan writers it is probably best to take the passage as meaning that the man who sins in the specified way commits a sin in respect of which he will not be able to make propitiation. Such seems to be the way in which MM understand it,²⁷⁵ though Büchsel joins Dodd in giving the verb here the meaning ‘expiate’.²⁷⁶ In any case the date of the inscription (probably second-third century AD) makes it impossible to think that any usage reflected therein could have affected the New Testament writers.

↑ Back to top