IV. THE ίλάσχομα WORD-GROUP IN THE SEPTUAGINT
III. THE WRATH OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
It has for long been recognized that the use of the word-group in the LXX is not the same as that in profane sources. Westcott, for example, has made much of this difference. In recent years none has done more than C. H. Dodd to demonstrate both the fact and the significance of this difference, and he roundly denies that we should understand the word-group of ‘propitiation’ at all. ’Expiation’ , he thinks, is the meaning. Thus he says of Romans 3: 25: ‘the meaning conveyed (in accordance with LXX usage, which is constantly determinative for Paul), is that of expiation, not that of propitiation. Most translators and commentators are wrong.’277 Or again: ‘The Johannine usage thus falls into line with biblical usage in general. The common rendering “propitiation” is illegitimate here as elsewhere.’278
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.
However, when we have rendered our full tribute to the work of this great scholar, we must ask to be forgiven for wondering whether the last word has yet been said. We readily agree that pagan ideas of wrath and propitiation are absent from the biblical view of God, but Dodd seems to say that all ideas of wrath and propitiation are absent from it. We have already noted his rejection of the idea of propitiation; but in his commentary on Romans he goes further and says that the wrath of God is ‘an archaic phrase’ suiting ‘a thoroughly archaic idea’.279 To many the wrath of God seems too well rooted in both Old and New Testaments to be relegated to the status of an archaism. Other questions suggest themselves, such as, ‘If the LXX translators and the New Testament writers did not mean propitiation, why did they choose to use words which signify propitiation and are saturated with propitiatory associations?‘280 Such a procedure, one would think, is the surest way of being misunderstood; and, if Dodd is right, their choice of words has, in fact, caused them to be misunderstood right up to our own day.
The wrath of God is often confused with that irrational passion we so frequently find in man and which was commonly ascribed to heathen deities. But this is not the only possibility. Thus Dr. Maldwyn Hughes says: ‘Let it be granted that anger is not an ideal word for our purpose, and that we use it only, as Augustine would say, “in order that we may not keep silent.” Our concern is with facts not with words. The fact which we have to face is that in the nature of things there must be an eternal recoil against the unholy on the part of the all-holy God’.281 If we can understand the wrath of God in some such fashion as this there seems no insuperable objection to our thinking of that wrath as a reality to be reckoned with, and to seeing propitiation as the means of averting that wrath from the sinner, who, unless this can be done, finds himself in evil case.
To the men of the Old Testament the wrath of God is both very real and very serious. God is not thought of as capriciously angry (like the deities of the heathen), but, because He is a moral Being, His anger is directed towards wrongdoing in any shape or form. Once roused, this anger is not easily assuaged, and dire consequences may follow. But it is only fair to add that the Old Testament consistently regards God as a God of mercy. Though men sin and thus draw down upon themselves the consequences of His wrath, yet God does not delight in the death of the sinner. He provides ways in which the consequences of sin may be averted.
There are more than twenty words used to express ‘wrath’ as it applies to Yahweh (in addition to a number of other words which occur only with reference to human anger). These are used so frequently that there are over 580 occurrences to be taken into consideration. This constitutes such a formidable body of evidence that we cannot hope to deal with it fully, and can only indicate in general terms the result of detailed examination.
There is a consistency about the wrath of God in the Old Testament. It is no capricious passion, but the stern reaction of the divine nature towards evil. It is aroused only and inevitably by sin. This may be thought of in general terms (Jb. 21: 20; Je. 21: 12; Ezk. 24: 13), or it may be categorized more exactly as the shedding of blood (Ezk. 16: 38; 24: 8), adultery (Ezk. 23: 25), violence (Ezk. 8: 18), covetousness (Je. 6: 11), revenge (Ezk. 25: 17), afflicting widows and orphans (Ex. 22: 23f.), taking brethren captive (2 Ch. 28: 11-13), etc. Wrath comes upon Israel because of the evil of Jeroboam as repeated by Jehoahaz (2 Ki. 13: 3), and because of the evil of Manasseh (2 Ki. 23: 26), while Moses feared that the desire of the two and a half tribes not to pass over Jordan would have a similar effect (Nu. 32: 14). Profaning the sabbath arouses wrath (Ne. 13: 18), which comes also upon men who ‘have not told the truth about’ God (Jb. 42: 7, Moffatt), and Gideon feared that his repeated testing of the Lord would also cause God’s anger (Jdg. 6: 39).
Perhaps we are able to see something of the root causes of the divine anger in such passages as ‘anger also went up against Israel; because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation’ (Ps. 78: 21f.), or those linking rebellion with the divine wrath such as, ‘We have transgressed and have rebelled; thou hast not pardoned. Thou hast covered with anger and pursued us’ (La. 3: 42f.), or, ‘It will be, seeing that ye rebel today against the Lord, that tomorrow he will be wroth with the whole congregation of Israel’ (Jos. 22: 18). The sin above all sins which is said in the Old Testament to arouse God’s wrath is the sin of idolatry. This may be asserted in general terms (Dt. 6: 14f.; Jos. 23: 16, etc.), or in connection with specific acts of idolatry such as the worship of the golden calf (Ex. 32: 10f.), or the iniquity of Baal-peor (Nu. 25: 3), or practices associated with idolatry (Is. 66: 15-17). Sometimes the accusation is accompanied by that of forsaking Jehovah (Dt. 29: 25ff.; 2 Ki. 22: 17), while, in Ezra 9: 14, breaking God’s commandments and making affinity with the heathen are mentioned.
From these and many other examples it is clear that in the Old Testament the anger of God may be expected to be visited upon the perpetrator of any sin. God made men for Himself, made them so that they should be His people, and live in accordance with His commandments. When they failed to do so they inevitably aroused His settled opposition, His wrath.
The effects of this wrath, the happenings which show that the Lord is angry, are such things as affliction in general (Ps. 88: 7), or specific evils such as pestilence (Ezk. 14: 19), ‘the cup of staggering’ (Is. 51: 22), slaughter (Ezk. 9: 8), destruction (Ezk. 5: 15), execration, reproach, etc. (Je. 42: 18), being delivered up to the enemy (2 Ch. 28: 9), the destruction of Jerusalem (La. 4: II), desolation (Is. 13: 9; Je. 4: 26), drought (Dt. II: 17), plague (2 Sa. 24: 1ff.) , leprosy (Nu. 12: 9), and above all, the exile (2 Ki. 23: 26; Is. 42: 25; Ezk. 19: 12, etc.). There are other effects, and almost any disaster could be interpreted as a sign of the divine wrath.
Sometimes the linking of such disasters with the wrath of God is taken to indicate that this wrath denotes nothing more than an impersonal retribution. For example, C. H. Dodd says that the work of the prophets is such that “the Wrath of God” is taken out of the sphere of the purely mysterious, and brought into the sphere of cause and effect: sin is the cause, disaster the effect ... in speaking of wrath and judgment the prophets and psalmists have their minds mainly on events, actual or expected, conceived as the inevitable results of sin; and when they speak of mercy they are thinking mainly of the personal relation between God and His people. Wrath is the effect of human sin: mercy is not the effect of human goodness, but is inherent in the character of God.’282
But this will not fit the facts. In the first place the prophets had a strongly developed view of the sovereignty of God. Nothing that men can do escapes Him, and nothing, it would seem, can be done without Him, for ‘the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men’ (Dn. 4: 17). The punishment consequent on sin is just as much due to God as is the forgiveness which remits such punishment, for God is in all of life. ‘Shall evil befall a city, and the Lord hath not done it?’ (Am. 3: 6) is the incredulous query of one of the prophets and he emphasizes also that it is the Lord who ‘bringeth sudden destruction upon the strong’ (Am. 5: 9). We read similarly in Isaiah 45: 6f.: ’I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the Lord, >that doeth all these things.’ There is no point in continuing the list, for the Old Testament everywhere assumes that God is active throughout His creation, and that His hand is to be discerned in the chastisements which come upon men.
Then the prophets and the psalmists use the most strongly personal terms when they speak of the anger of the Lord. What else are we to make of passages like the following? ‘Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee, and accomplish mine anger against thee ... And mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity ... and ye shall know that I the Lord do smite’ (Ezk. 7: 8f.). Or ‘The anger of the Lord shall not return, until he have executed, and till he have performed the intents of his heart’ (Je. 23: 20). Or ‘Behold, the name of the Lord cometh from far, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue is as a devouring fire: and his breath is as an overflowing stream, that reacheth even unto the neck, to sift the nations with the sieve of vanity ... And the Lord shall cause his glorious voice to be heard, and shall shew the lighting down of his arm, with the indignation of his anger, and the flame of a devouring fire, with a blast, and tempest, and hailstones. For through the voice of the Lord shall the Assyrian be broken in pieces, ‘etc. (Is. 30: 27—31). ‘O God, thou hast cast us off, thou hast broken us down; thou hast been angry: ... Thou hast made the land to tremble; thou hast rent it: ... Thou hast shewed thy people hard things: thou hast made us to drink the wine of staggering’ (Ps. 60: 1—3).
It is difficult to imagine how the prophets and psalmists could possibly have expressed more strongly the personal character of the wrath of God. While disaster is regarded as the inevitable result of man’s sin, it is so in the view of the Old Testament, not by some inexorable law of an impersonal Nature, but because a holy God wills to pour out the vials of His wrath upon those who commit sin. Indeed, it is largely because wrath is so fully personal in the Old Testament that mercy becomes so fully personal, for mercy is the action of the same God who was angry, allowing His wrath to be turned away. It should be noted that many passages place the wrath and the mercy of God on the same plane as personal activities, for example, ‘He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy’ (Mi. 7: 18), or, ‘Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin. Thou hast taken away all thy wrath: thou hast turned thyself from the fierceness of thine anger’ (Ps. 85: 2f.).
It is true that some passages speak of wrath in more or less impersonal terms, or connect punishment directly with sin, but these always imply the continuing activity of Yahweh. For example Psalm 38: 3 says: ‘There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine indignation; neither is there any health in my bones because of my sin.’ This might well be cited in support of the contention that wrath is impersonal retribution were it not that the two preceding verses strongly emphasize the personal divine activity: ‘O Lord, rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure. For thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore.’ This is typical Old Testament teaching. God is personally active in deeds of wrath as in deeds of mercy.
Let us now notice some of the ways in which the wrath of God is averted. One way is by purging out the sin, for example, by completely destroying an offending city (Dt. 13: 15—17), slaying those who had sinned at Baal-peor (Nu. 25: 4), releasing captives (2 Ch. 28: 11-13), or putting away heathen wives (Ezr. 10: 14). Sometimes the means is a right inward state, such as repentance (Jon. 3: 7, 10), or humbling oneself (2 Ch. 12: 7). Passages referring to judgment (Je. 21: 12) and circumcising the heart (Je. 4: 4) are not dissimilar. Both Moses and Jeremiah are said to have stood before God and turned away wrath from Israel, presumably by successful intercession (Ps. 106: 23; Je. 18: 20), while Job’s prayer is similarly referred to (Jb. 42: 7f).
Underlying the fact that these and other things are said to turn away the divine wrath is the basic truth that God is by nature merciful rather than wrathful. Indeed wrath may be thought of as His ‘strange work’, as in Isaiah 28: 21: ‘For the Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon; that he may do his work, his strange work, and bring to pass his act, his strange act.’ While wrath is a dreadful reality, it must not be taken as the last word about God. This is not contradicted by the statement that ‘God will not withdraw his anger’ (Jb. 9: 13), for this means not that He is implacable, but only that He is not to be diverted from His purposes by puny man. It is a denial of the heathen idea of a gift being accepted to appease anger. But it does not follow that He habitually punishes men to the fullest extent, as we see from Job 35: 15, ‘he hath not visited in his anger’, or from the incredulous questions of the psalmist, ‘Hath God forgotten to be gracious? Hath he in anger shut up his tender mercies?’ (Ps. 77: 9). A beautiful reminder that God’s nature is merciful rather than wrathful comes from Micah: ‘Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retaineth not his anger for ever because he delighteth in mercy. He will turn again and have compassion upon us, he will tread our iniquities under foot: and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea’ (Mi. 7: 18f.).
Full of interest are ten passages in which God is said to be ‘slow to anger’ (Ex. 34: 6; Nu. 14:18; Ne. 9: 17; Pss. 86: 15; 103: 8; 145: 8; Je. 15: 15; Joel 2: 13; Jon. 4: 2; Na. 1:3). In reading them we are apt to fasten our attention on expressions like ‘slow to anger and plenteous in mercy’. But we should not overlook the fact that the writers could, in the immediate context, say such things as, the Lord ‘will by no means clear the guilty’ (Nu. 14: 18), or ‘turn ye unto me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning’ (Joel 2: 12). For those who wrote such words the idea that God is ‘slow to anger’ was not a truism. It was a surprising revelation, something to be received with awe and wonder.
This thinking reaches its climax in the passages where the removal of divine wrath is ascribed to God Himself. Thus Psalm 78: 3 8 tells us that ‘many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath’, while in Isaiah 48: 9 God says, ‘For my name’s sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off’ (cf. Ps. 85: 2f., where, incidentally, forgiveness and the turning away of wrath are nearly identical). Other passages could be quoted, but it seems hardly necessary. The general picture which the Old Testament gives us of God is of One who is by nature merciful, and who cannot be swayed by man’s puny efforts. In the last resort forgiveness is always due to God’s being what He is, and not to anything that man may do. Because God is God, He must react in the strongest manner to man’s sin, and thus we reach the concept of the divine wrath. But because God is God, wrath cannot be the last word. ‘The Lord is good; his mercy endureth for ever’ (Ps. 100: 5).
IV. THE ίλάσχομα
WORD-GROUP IN THE SEPTUAGINT
a. The work of C. H. Dodd
Dodd’s valuable treatment of the word-group begins by showing that where the LXX does not use ίλάσχομα, etc., to translate kipper, it uses words with meanings like ’ “to sanctify”, “purify” persons or objects of ritual, or “to cancel”, “purge away”, “forgive” sins’; from which he concludes: ‘We should therefore expect to find that they regard the ίλάσχεσθα class as conveying similar ideas.‘283 His next point is that, where ἱλάσχομα, etc., are not the translation for kipper and its derivatives, ‘they render words which fall into one or other of two classes: (i) with human subject, “to cleanse from sin or defilement”, “to expiate”; (ii) with divine subject, “to be gracious”, “to have mercy”, “to forgive”.‘284 His third main division is one in which he deals with those passages wherein ἱλάσχομα, etc., render the kipper group, and here he concludes that ‘the LXX translators did not regard kipper (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’.285
, etc., to translate kipper, it uses words with meanings like ’ “to sanctify”, “purify” persons or objects of ritual, or “to cancel”, “purge away”, “forgive” sins’; from which he concludes: ‘We should therefore expect to find that they regard the ίλάσχεσθα class as conveying similar ideas.‘283 His next point is that, where ἱλάσχομα, etc., are not the translation for kipper and its derivatives, ‘they render words which fall into one or other of two classes: (i) with human subject, “to cleanse from sin or defilement”, “to expiate”; (ii) with divine subject, “to be gracious”, “to have mercy”, “to forgive”.‘284 His third main division is one in which he deals with those passages wherein ἱλάσχομα, etc., render the kipper group, and here he concludes that ‘the LXX translators did not regard kipper (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’.285It might be urged in criticism of this method that it is capable of giving the meaning of the word-group in question only in a very general way. Thus Dodd has to group together in his first main section words whose meaning differs as greatly as ‘to sanctify’ and ‘to cancel’. When there is such a vast gulf between different members of the same group obviously we cannot expect to get a very precise meaning for the ἱλάσχομα group from them. And in fact Dodd has not indicated the full extent of the range. Roger R. Nicole, in an important article on ‘C. H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation’,286 points out that Dodd has not taken into account a large group of words which translate kipper and its cognates (e.g. ἀϕαρεῖν, Is. 27: 9; ἀντάλλαγμα, Is. 43: 3; etc.). Nicole maintains that Dodd takes into account no more than 36 per cent of the evidence. He considers that when all the evidence is included Dodd’s conclusion should be rewritten in this form: ’where the LXX translators do not render kipper and its cognates by words of the ἱλάσχεσθα class, they render it by words which give the meaning “to sanctify”, “to forgive”, “to remove”, “to cover with pitch”, “to ransom”, “to contribute”, “to give”, “to veil”, “to anoint”, “the village”, “the myrrh”, or they have failed to render it altogether. We should therefore expect to find that they regard the ἱλάσχεσθα class as conveying similar ideas.’287 This, of course, makes the statement meaningless, which is Nicole’s point.
group from them. And in fact Dodd has not indicated the full extent of the range. Roger R. Nicole, in an important article on ‘C. H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation’,286 points out that Dodd has not taken into account a large group of words which translate kipper and its cognates (e.g. ἀϕαρεῖν, Is. 27: 9; ἀντάλλαγμα, Is. 43: 3; etc.). Nicole maintains that Dodd takes into account no more than 36 per cent of the evidence. He considers that when all the evidence is included Dodd’s conclusion should be rewritten in this form: ’where the LXX translators do not render kipper and its cognates by words of the ἱλάσχεσθα class, they render it by words which give the meaning “to sanctify”, “to forgive”, “to remove”, “to cover with pitch”, “to ransom”, “to contribute”, “to give”, “to veil”, “to anoint”, “the village”, “the myrrh”, or they have failed to render it altogether. We should therefore expect to find that they regard the ἱλάσχεσθα class as conveying similar ideas.’287 This, of course, makes the statement meaningless, which is Nicole’s point.The method is open to a further danger. To illustrate, the word 
όσμος may on occasion be translated by ‘adorning’ (I Pet. 3: 3, AV), though usually ‘world’ is used. But we cannot argue from this that ‘adorning’ and ‘world’ are words of similar meaning. The fact is that χόσμος in Greek covers a range of meaning for which we have no exact English equivalent, so that we must make use of various words, some of which differ considerably from one another in meaning. This is a commonplace of translation and it is difficult to see how Dodd has overlooked it. It may be true to say kipper and ἐξλάσχομα mean very nearly the same thing; but that does not carry with it the corollary that other Hebrew words which ἐξάσχομα renders are akin in meaning to kipper, or that other Greek words which translate kipper are necessarily of similar significance to ἐξλάσχομα. The very reason for the choice of the different word may be that the second context demands a word differing in meaning from that appropriate in the first passage.288
όσμος may on occasion be translated by ‘adorning’ (I Pet. 3: 3, AV), though usually ‘world’ is used. But we cannot argue from this that ‘adorning’ and ‘world’ are words of similar meaning. The fact is that χόσμος in Greek covers a range of meaning for which we have no exact English equivalent, so that we must make use of various words, some of which differ considerably from one another in meaning. This is a commonplace of translation and it is difficult to see how Dodd has overlooked it. It may be true to say kipper and ἐξλάσχομα mean very nearly the same thing; but that does not carry with it the corollary that other Hebrew words which ἐξάσχομα renders are akin in meaning to kipper, or that other Greek words which translate kipper are necessarily of similar significance to ἐξλάσχομα. The very reason for the choice of the different word may be that the second context demands a word differing in meaning from that appropriate in the first passage.288The way to clear up such points is to pay close attention to the context in order to see, not so much what word, but what idea ἱλάσχομα, etc., translate. It may well be that, on occasion, the best word with which to render ἱλάσχομα is ‘forgive’ or ‘purge’; but if the particular forgiveness or purging of sin is one which involves, as a necessary feature, the putting away of the divine wrath, then it is idle to maintain that the word has been eviscerated of all idea of propitiation. Dodd totally ignores the fact that in many passages there is explicit mention of the putting away of God’s anger, and accordingly his conclusions cannot be accepted without serious modification.
, etc., translate. It may well be that, on occasion, the best word with which to render ἱλάσχομα is ‘forgive’ or ‘purge’; but if the particular forgiveness or purging of sin is one which involves, as a necessary feature, the putting away of the divine wrath, then it is idle to maintain that the word has been eviscerated of all idea of propitiation. Dodd totally ignores the fact that in many passages there is explicit mention of the putting away of God’s anger, and accordingly his conclusions cannot be accepted without serious modification.
b. ἱλάσχομα
This verb occurs eleven times in all, always in the middle or passive, and always with the Lord as subject (sometimes in petition, ‘Be thou, etc.’).289 The Hebrew verbs it translates convey thoughts like ‘forgive’, but we cannot glibly reason from this that therefore there is no thought of propitiation. Take, for example, Exodus 32: 14 (where the verb translates nḥm): ‘And the Lord repented of the evil which he said he would do unto his people.’ However we translate, we must notice that, in the context, it refers to a removal of wrath, for earlier Moses has asked the Lord, ‘why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people?’ (verse II), and has prayed, ‘Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people’ (verse 12). The connection between wrath and the Lord’s ‘repenting’ is plain.
Similarly in Lamentations 3: 42, ἱλάσχομα translates ṣlḥ and can be rendered ‘forgive’. But the sort of forgiveness which is meant is one which includes a turning away of wrath, as we see as soon as we look at the expression in its context: ‘We sinned, we behaved impiously and thou didst not forgive (or wast not propitiated). Thou didst visit in anger and pursue us.’ So in Daniel 9: 19 (Th.) we read: ‘O Lord, forgive’, which is much the same as ‘let thine anger and thy wrath, I pray thee, be turned away from thy city Jerusalem’ (verse 16). In 2 Kings 24: 3f. the explicit mention of the Lord’s anger, and the stress on the magnitude of Manasseh’s sin, combine to show that the verb carries the meaning ‘propitiate’, 290 while in Psalm 77(78): 38 the idea of forgiveness conveyed by this verb is practically identical with the averting of the divine wrath, ‘But he is compassionate and will forgive their sins, and he will not destroy (them); and he will many times turn away his anger, and will not kindle all his wrath’. We might make almost the same remark about the occurrence of the verb in Psalm 78(79): 9 (cf. verses 5ff.), and while wrath is not mentioned in Psalm 24(25): II the psalmist’s sin is said to be ‘great’, and he is suffering what might well be understood as the wrath of God, for he is desolate and afflicted, in trouble, distress and travail, and his enemies are many (verses 16ff.).
translates ṣlḥ and can be rendered ‘forgive’. But the sort of forgiveness which is meant is one which includes a turning away of wrath, as we see as soon as we look at the expression in its context: ‘We sinned, we behaved impiously and thou didst not forgive (or wast not propitiated). Thou didst visit in anger and pursue us.’ So in Daniel 9: 19 (Th.) we read: ‘O Lord, forgive’, which is much the same as ‘let thine anger and thy wrath, I pray thee, be turned away from thy city Jerusalem’ (verse 16). In 2 Kings 24: 3f. the explicit mention of the Lord’s anger, and the stress on the magnitude of Manasseh’s sin, combine to show that the verb carries the meaning ‘propitiate’, 290 while in Psalm 77(78): 38 the idea of forgiveness conveyed by this verb is practically identical with the averting of the divine wrath, ‘But he is compassionate and will forgive their sins, and he will not destroy (them); and he will many times turn away his anger, and will not kindle all his wrath’. We might make almost the same remark about the occurrence of the verb in Psalm 78(79): 9 (cf. verses 5ff.), and while wrath is not mentioned in Psalm 24(25): II the psalmist’s sin is said to be ‘great’, and he is suffering what might well be understood as the wrath of God, for he is desolate and afflicted, in trouble, distress and travail, and his enemies are many (verses 16ff.).Much is sometimes made of the fact that there is one passage where sin is the object of the verb and it is urged that ‘expiate’ rather than ‘propitiate’ must be the meaning (Ps. 64(65) : 4). But even if we dismiss the fact that some MSS read the dative (Swete cites 
ca., T) the context tells us that ‘Words of lawless men have overpowered us’, and once more we see the kind of thing which would naturally be associated with divine wrath.291
ca., T) the context tells us that ‘Words of lawless men have overpowered us’, and once more we see the kind of thing which would naturally be associated with divine wrath.291So it is also with Esther 13: 17 (Addition C verse 10), for here the people are under sentence of death. In the only remaining passage, 2 Kings 5: 18 (where the verb occurs twice) Naaman asks pardon for bowing down in the house of Rimmon, an action prohibited in the Second Commandment on the grounds that Yahweh is a ‘jealous God’. Moreover Naaman has just come out of heathendom, and might be expected to use the word in the typically heathen fashion.
To sum up : six times there is explicit mention of wrath in the immediate context, once the people are under sentence of death, twice the psalmist is greatly afflicted, and on the other occasion the action is that one above all others which the Old Testament regards as provoking God’s wrath. We cannot say that the concept of the wrath of God is certainly absent from any of these passages, and in every one the rendering ‘propitiate’ is quite appropriate. In the face of all this it is manifestly impossible to maintain that the verb has been emptied of its force.292
c. ἱλασμός
This noun occurs ten times in a variety of contexts. Sometimes it is connected with kpr as in ‘day of atonement’, etc. (We will deal with the idea of atonement when we come to ἐξλάσχομα.)
λάσχομα.)The word is used of forgiveness in Daniel 9: 8 (Th.), ‘To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses’. Here again the situation involves the wrath of God, as we see from ‘the curse has come upon us’ (verse II), He has brought ‘great evils’ upon His people (verse 12), and Daniel’s prayer ‘let thine anger and thy wrath, I pray thee, be turned away’ (verse 16). The word occurs in Psalm 129 (130): 4, once more in a context of trouble: ‘Out of the depths have I cried’ (verse I). Propitiation is clearly the meaning in 2 Maccabees 3: 33, where it is applied to the sacrifice offered by Onias to deliver Heliodorus from further chastisement, and where the whole tenor of the passage leaves no doubt that averting of wrath is being signified.
Thus the propitiatory idea which we have seen to be involved in ἱ λάσχομα is to be discerned also in ἱλασμός. Wherever it means ‘forgiveness’, the circumstances indicate the turning away of the divine wrath.293
is to be discerned also in ἱλασμός. Wherever it means ‘forgiveness’, the circumstances indicate the turning away of the divine wrath.293
d. ἱλαστήρον
This word is used of the mercy-seat over the ark of the covenant (twenty-two times) and of one of the ledges of Ezekiel’s altar (five times). It means either ‘place of atonement’ (Manson) or ‘means of atonement’ (Büchsel, Deissmann, etc.), but in either case it is associated with the cultus, and we defer discussing the idea involved until we come to consider ἐξλάσχομα.
λάσχομα.The term also occurs in 4 Maccabees 17: 22, though here it may be held to derive from the adjective rather than the substantive. The death of the seven brothers is spoken of: ‘They having as it were become a ransom (ἀνίφυχον) for the nation’s sin; and through the blood of these righteous men and their propitiatory death (or, the propitiation of their death) the divine providence delivered Israel.’ Here the meaning ‘propitiation’ is plain, and this may be of significance for the interpretation of Romans 3: 25.
e. ἳλεως
It hardly seems necessary to examine the 35 occurrences of this word in detail. In general we may say that its usage fits in with that of the other words of the word-group, in that the term usually denotes the attitude of the Lord in turning His anger away from the people. The adjective occurs several times in the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple (see I Ki. 8; 2 Ch. 6), a prayer of a cyclic character with the pattern, ‘When the people commit sin and thou afflict them in such and such a way, if they repent and confess, then hear thou and forgive’. All the afflictions are such as might be caused by the divine wrath (and in one place or another of the Old Testament each is expressly said to be the result of the anger of the Lord), and it would be going contrary to the whole tenor of Old Testament thought to regard the afflictions mentioned as other than the outworking of the divine wrath. In view of the setting, then, ‘forgive’ here seems to have the implication of the removal of wrath. So is it when a man is found murdered and the elders of the nearest city are commanded to kill a heifer (Dt. 21: 8). It is difficult to interpret this other than as a propitiatory rite, after which ‘Be propitiated for thy people Israel’ is quite in place. In other passages where the word is found we usually find that the wrath of God is mentioned or implied, and we may well feel that this word, like the others we have considered, has reference, in the last resort, to the removal of wrath.