V. Conclusion
f. ἐξ
λάσχομα
Although the verb ἐξλάσχομα does not occur in the New Testament, yet because of its close kinship in meaning with ἱλάσχομα, and because of its importance in the Old Testament, it is well to consider its usage. It is found 105 times, the number being accounted for in large measure because it is the usual verb for rendering the recurring expression ‘to make atonement’ (Heb. kipper) in connection with the sacrificial system. The fact that ἐξλάσχομα renders kipper eighty-three times and other Hebrew roots a total of eleven times only, shows that the two words ἐξλάσχομα and kipper are nearly synonymous in meaning, or at least that the LXX translators thought so.
λάσχομα does not occur in the New Testament, yet because of its close kinship in meaning with ἱλάσχομα, and because of its importance in the Old Testament, it is well to consider its usage. It is found 105 times, the number being accounted for in large measure because it is the usual verb for rendering the recurring expression ‘to make atonement’ (Heb. kipper) in connection with the sacrificial system. The fact that ἐξλάσχομα renders kipper eighty-three times and other Hebrew roots a total of eleven times only, shows that the two words ἐξλάσχομα and kipper are nearly synonymous in meaning, or at least that the LXX translators thought so.The usage of kipper divides naturally into two sections, according as atonement is thought of as coming by a cultic action or by non-cultic means, the former being by far the larger section. But for our present purpose the latter is the more important group, enabling us, as it does, to see what the verb means in itself quite apart from the conventional use of the cultus. For it seems probable that, in the case of kipper (as no doubt of other words also), a word well understood from its use in connection with ordinary affairs was adopted and adapted by exponents of the cultus because it so well expressed one of the aspects of the cultic approach to God. It is likely that, in the process, a conventional meaning has become attached to the word, and not at all improbable that the cultic use differs somewhat from the secular use. That, however, will remain for examination, and does not affect our main contention that the non-cultic use is fundamental. This was noticed long ago by Dr. S. H. Langdon who said: ‘Before examining the Hebrew cult term it will be much more logical to examine those passages in which the word is not employed in the rituals.‘294 But, unfortunately, he failed to notice more than a very few such passages. More recently J. Herrmann has also noticed the importance of the non-cultic passages.295
(i) The non-cultic use of kipper. The impressive thing about the passages in which kipper is used of atonement wrought without reference to the cultus, is the close kinship in meaning between it and the noun kōpher which we have already had occasion to consider,296 and which we saw almost without exception (perhaps without any exception) to denote payment for the redemption of forfeited life.
Especially important is Exodus 30: 12—16 where kipper and kōpher occur together, and their connection is clear. The passage deals with the half shekel to be paid at the census as a kōpher in order that there be no plague. The thought of payment for a man’s life is clear, and the money in question is referred to both as kōpher naphshô (‘ransom for his soul’, verse 12), and as keseph hakkippūrim (‘atonement money’, verse 16), while it is twice said ’to make atonement for your souls’ (verses 15, 16). The verb kipper has here the sense of atonement, and of atonement by the payment of a sum of money as ransom. A similar meaning is required when the men of war offer a part of the spoil which they term ‘the Lord’s oblation’, and which is ‘to make atonement for our souls before the Lord’ (Nu. 31: 50). Plainly here the verb kipper is in the nature of a denominative, meaning ‘to offer a kōpher’. This meaning is clear also in Genesis 32: 20, where Jacob thinks that his present to Esau will have the effect of ‘ransoming’ him from his brother’s wrath.297 Isaiah 47: II lends further support, especially if the emendation of shaḥrāh (‘dawning thereof’) to shaḥadhāh (‘to buy it off’) be accepted. This would yield an interesting parallelism for the thought of the verse would then run: ‘Therefore shall evil come upon thee; and thou shalt not know how to buy it off (shaḥadhāh): and mischief shall fall upon thee; and thou shalt not be able to ransom it away (kapperâh).’2
In other instances the kōpher is not money, but life. Thus Moses says: ‘Now I will go up unto the Lord; peradventure I shall make atonement for your sin’ (Ex. 32:30). But when he pleads with the Lord his method of ‘making atonement’ is by offering his own life for them (verse 32). Here again kipper means ‘to pay a kōpher’, but the kōpher in question is a life. Most instructive for an understanding of kipper is 2 Samuel 21: 1-14, where we read of a famine due to Saul’s treatment of the Gibeonites. David called them and asked: ‘What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make atonement (‘akhappēr), that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord?’ (verse 3). That the Gibeonites understood by ‘akhappēr ‘pay a kōpher’ is clear by their answer: ‘It is no matter of silver or gold between us and Saul, or his house’; and their recognition of the life-for-life principle comes out in the second part of their answer: ‘neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel’ (verse 4). Eventually seven descendants of Saul were delivered to the Gibeonites to be hanged and these formed the kōpher demanded (though that term is not explicitly used). The whole passage is most instructive.
Numbers 35: 33 is almost a statement of the very principle on which the Gibeonites acted. The two preceding verses have said that for murder no kōpher may be paid, and the reasoning goes on: ‘So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood, it polluteth the land: and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.’ In its context the last section of the verse must mean ‘No kōpher is acceptable for murder, other than the blood of the murderer’, and once again we have strong evidence of the close connection between the two words. The Song of Moses (Dt. 32) gives us a further example of the same principle at work. Yahweh ‘will make expiation (wekhipper) for his land, and for his people’ (verse 43), and in verses 41, 42 we have the blood of the enemy specifically indicated. The expression, ’For he will avenge the blood of his servants’ (verse 43), clearly indicates that a life-for-life transaction is meant.
It is this necessity for paying for blood with blood that is behind Deuteronomy 21: 1—9, where we get the further idea of propitiating the divine wrath by means of a kōpher. A murder has been committed, the body being left lying in a field, and the perpetrator of the crime is unknown. Since no kōpher has been paid by ‘the blood of him that shed’ blood (Nu. 35: 33), the wrath of God must be assumed to rest on the community. In order to remove it the elders of the nearest city are to take a heifer to a prescribed place and there to break its neck. It is difficult to see in this anything other than an offering of a propitiatory character,298 wherein the blood of the beast is the kōpher for the blood of the man. On this ground Yahweh is prayed to grant His people atonement, and the passage assures them that the blood will thus be atoned (verse 8).
There are other occurrences of kipper where the cultus is not in question, most of which are readily understood in the way we have outlined above. Thus, when we read, ‘By mercy and truth iniquity is purged’ (Pr. 16: 6), the meaning would seem to be that these qualities are a sort of price paid - the language is figurative—whereby the wrath attendant on iniquity is bought off. A few verses later we have the verb again in the statement that ‘The wrath of a king is as messengers of death: but a wise man will atone it’,299
i.e. will provide a kōpher for it.
The idea that is to be discerned in the last mentioned passage of a gift turning away wrath probably underlies other passages wherein the thought is one of forgiveness. The forgiveness that is in mind when kipper is used is one which involves the turning away of wrath, and the imagery of the word implies that it is by the offering of a kōpher. Thus in Isaiah 27: 9 we have the thought of forgiveness, but it is a forgiveness that is brought about when Jacob ‘maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones that are beaten in sunder, so that the Asherim and the sun-images shall rise no more’. The nation is being castigated for idolatry, which is probably the sin above all others that is said in the Old Testament to arouse the wrath of God, and the path of expiation is the beating small of the idolatrous altars and the abolition of the worship served by them. This is regarded as the kōpher by which forgiveness is obtained.
The particular kōpher which is to be offered is not mentioned in Ezekiel 16: 63, but the explicit mention of the wrath of God (verses 38, 42) makes it clear that we are still moving in the same circle of ideas. In Psalm 78: 38 the parallelism makes ‘forgave (atoned) their iniquity’ almost equivalent to ‘turned he his anger away’, and similarly in Psalm 79: 9, the removal of wrath as the way of purging sins is clear from the references to the divine anger in the situation (verses 5, 6, 8). In Psalm 65: 3, ‘As for our transgressions, thou shalt purge them away’, there is by no means as clear a reference either to a kōpher or to divine anger, though the magnitude of the sin is stressed in the preceding ‘Iniquities prevail against me’, which perhaps points to the arousing of such an anger. The precise meaning of Daniel 9: 24 is not easy to determine, but the expression ‘Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity’ seems to indicate, at any rate, that the ’troublous times’ of the period mentioned are in the nature of a kōpher playing its part in making the reconciliation.
There is a similar idea behind Jeremiah’s prayer against his enemies: ‘Forgive not their iniquity ... deal thou with them in the time of thine anger’ (Je. 18: 23). The anger of the Lord and the refusal to accept a kōpher are here in close connection.
The thought of propitiation is very clear when Phinehas slew Zimri and Cozbi at the time of the sin of Baal-Peor to stay the plague which followed the kindling of the Lord’s anger (Nu. 25: 3-9). Of this action we read: ‘Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy ... he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel’ (Nu. 25: II-13). Here the zealous priest by offering up the lives of the evil-doers is thought of as rendering the kōpher which averts the divine wrath. There can hardly be serious doubt that here we have propitiation in the fullest sense,300 or that this propitiation is the turning away of wrath by the offering of a kōpher.
There remain two passages in both of which the reference is to the purging away of uncleanness (2 Ch. 30: 18; Is. 6: 7). In neither case can it be said that the payment of a kōpher seems indicated, though neither is inconsistent with a propitiation of the divine wrath, for ritual defilement is thought to provoke the anger of the deity in many religions. But it should be noticed that these passages are both later than I Samuel 3:14 where kipper has begun to have a cultic application. It is accordingly not impossible that cultic ideas are behind the use of the word in these passages. If so, the general argument from the secular use of the word would, of course, remain unaffected.
From the foregoing examination of the evidence it appears that, when kipper is used in the Old Testament to denote the making of an atonement by means other than the use of the cultus, it usually bears the meaning ‘to avert punishment, especially the divine anger, by the payment of a kōpher, a ransom’, which may be of money or which may be of life. Thus extra-cultic kipper denotes a substitutionary process. This is so plain as to need no comment in the cases where life is substituted for life, and the principle is really the same when the sentence is commuted for a money payment. In each case the essence of the transaction is the provision of an acceptable substitute.
The fact that, in practically all of the passages we have examined, kipper and kōpher are closely connected seems very significant, for when we are seeking to establish the meaning of a word it is the usage in Hebrew that is decisive.301 In examining the meaning of kipper scholars often adduce words from other Semitic languages; but while due allowance must be made for the importance of such evidence, in the last resort it is the way the Hebrews actually used the word which really counts. The importance of this is that the usage of the two words kipper and kōpher indicates, as we have seen, that kōpher is probably the more original, and that kipper may well be regarded as a denominative from kōpher. The seven places where atonement is made through offering a kōpher of life, and the nine where the kōpher is money or goods or a metaphorical price, seem to be conclusive, embracing as they do the majority of the non-cultic occurrences of the term.
(ii) The cultic use of kipper. It is not easy to find out exactly how the sacrifices were thought to make atonement, as the verb kipper acquired a technical meaning which completely overshadowed any other. In most places it means ‘to accomplish reconciliation between God and man’ without anything to indicate how that reconciliation is obtained. The word has taken on a conventional meaning. However, indications are not lacking that the above-mentioned relationship between kōpher and kipper gives us the key to the understanding of the cultic references.
Thus if we take the incident narrated in Numbers 16: 41—50 we have a making of atonement which may be held to be a link between the cultic and the non-cultic usages. Here the congregation has murmured against Moses and Aaron and a plague has broken out as a consequence of the Lord’s anger against the people (verse 46). The means of averting the wrath is by Aaron’s making an offering of incense (verses 46f.), and such an action by a duly consecrated priest must surely be regarded as within the scope of the cultus. But it was not one of the prescribed offerings, being purely an oblation made in time of grave emergency for the specific purpose of turning away the anger of the Lord, and the affinities of this with a kōpher-payment are obvious. If it be objected that there was no great money value in the offering of a small quantity of incense, so that the atonement obtained is out of all proportion to the price paid, the answer must be that the atonement obtained is always out of all proportion to the price paid,302 even in the case of the non-cultic atonements, as for example the half-shekel, or the payment to secure immunity when one’s ox has gored a man. There is always an element of grace in atonement. But just as, notwithstanding this, we can appreciate the place of the kōpher-payment in non-cultic practice, so in the processes of the cultus we may recognize both the element of grace and the necessity for the worshipper to make his offering if he would be forgiven his sin.
We have already noted the incident in Numbers 31 wherein the men of war offered part of the spoil which they called ‘the Lord’s oblation’ and which was ‘to make atonement for their souls before the Lord’. There seems no reason to regard this as other than a non-cultic process, for there is no hint of sacrifice being offered. But there is not a great deal of difference between this and the offering of the princes in Numbers 7, for included in their oblation (qorbān) were ‘one silver charger, the weight thereof was an hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary ... one golden spoon of ten shekels’, which objects of precious metal seem similar to the offering of the men of war. But we cannot separate the gift of the princes from the cultus, because under the comprehensive term qorbān are included not only the precious metal, but also burnt, sin and peace offerings.
The affinity of the cultus with kōpher seems clear also in Numbers 15: 25, ‘And the priest shall make atonement (wekhipper) for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and they shall be forgiven; for it was an error, and they have brought their oblation (‘ethqorbānām), an offering made by fire unto the Lord’, etc. Here the sacrifice that makes atonement is expressly said to be qorbān, a word which, as G. Buchanan Gray puts it, ‘vividly expressed the sense of gift’.303 It seems impossible to escape the conclusion that in this passage kipper stands for a process of making atonement by the offering of a suitable gift (other passages also have the idea of the gift element in sacrifice, e.g. Dt. 16: 16; Jdg. 6: 18, 19; Is. 18: 7; Zp. 3: 10, etc.304).
It would seem that it is in this circle of ideas that we are to understand the statement that ‘the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned with sacrifice nor offering for ever’ (I Sa. 3: 14.). The house in question had been guilty of sin against the Lord which aroused His wrath against them. Perhaps this wrath could be turned away (according to the thought of the day) by payment of a kōpher and the lives now forfeit be in this manner redeemed? The words of verse 14 emphatically repudiate this idea. No sacrifice or offering will form a kōpher under these circumstances. In this undeniably early passage the cultus is regarded as a means of offering a kōpher, and this is probably significant for an understanding of the cultus.
This was apparently the way the cultus was regarded by the Jews at Yeb, in Egypt. When the priests wrote to Bigvai, the governor of Judea, urging him to give command concerning the rebuilding of their temple, they said that, if he acceded to their request, they would offer sacrifices on his behalf and pray for him, ‘and it shall be a merit to you before Ya‘u the God of Heaven more than a man who offers to him sacrifice and burnt-offerings worth >as much as the sum of a thousand talents’.305 The mention of the money equivalent indicates clearly that the thought of a gift availing before God is for the writers the rationale of sacrifice.
Possibly the provision in the case of the guilt offering for an extra one fifth to be added to full restitution in certain cases points in the same general direction. Thus, in the matter of an unwitting trespass ‘in the holy things of the Lord’, it is provided that ‘he shall make restitution for that which he hath done amiss in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven’ (Lv. 5: 16). Here the extra fifth looks uncommonly like a sort of kōpher, and the same may be said for other examples of the guilt offering.
It is especially interesting to note that when restitution was owed to a man, but could not be paid because the man was dead, and there was no kinsman, it was still necessary for the restitution (the full amount owed plus one fifth) to be paid, but to the Lord (Nu. 5: 8). It would seem that there was a principle involved, namely that a kōpher must be paid if atonement was to be effected.
To adduce further examples would entail a long discussion which would be out of place here. If there is anything in the thesis which is being maintained then the use outside the cultus coupled with these few examples of the continuity of the cultic with the non-cultic use should suffice to demonstrate the point. The general impression produced by the sacrificial system, that an offering of a propitiatory character is being made, is perhaps worthy of notice also. It is not so much from consideration of details as from the general sweep of the whole that conviction is obtained.306
It is also worth noticing that the prophets witness to a belief that sacrifice was the offering of a gift to Yahweh which would incline Him to be favourable. Passages like Isaiah 1 : 11ff. ; Micah 6: 6ff., show clearly that such a theory of sacrifice was present to the minds of the worshippers. The prophets denounce much in the attitude of the people, in particular pointing out the prime importance of ethical considerations; but it may be significant that they nowhere suggest a different theory of sacrifice. It seems reasonable to expect that had they held this theory to be wrong they would have both said so, and also have indicated the better theory.
Thus it would seem that the verb kipper carries with it the implication of a turning away of the divine wrath by an appropriate offering. This meaning accords well with the general usage of ἐξιλάσ
oμαι, and it seems clear that this verb is used so often to translate kipper precisely for this reason.
oμαι, and it seems clear that this verb is used so often to translate kipper precisely for this reason.It remains to be considered whether the conclusions we have reached regarding the ἐξιλάσoμαι = kipper equation are affected by the evidence afforded by those passages in the LXX where ἐξιλάσoμαι renders Hebrew words other than kipper. We have already noted that this Greek verb is the translation of kipper eighty-three times; for the rest it translates ḥṭṭ’ five times, ḥllh three times, plll and ’shm once each (also yd‘ once, but this seems to rest on a misunderstanding of the Hebrew),307 and eleven times there is no Hebrew equivalent.
oμαι = kipper equation are affected by the evidence afforded by those passages in the LXX where ἐξιλάσoμαι renders Hebrew words other than kipper. We have already noted that this Greek verb is the translation of kipper eighty-three times; for the rest it translates ḥṭṭ’ five times, ḥllh three times, plll and ’shm once each (also yd‘ once, but this seems to rest on a misunderstanding of the Hebrew),307 and eleven times there is no Hebrew equivalent.So far as ḥṭṭ’ ‘to un-sin, to make a sin offering’ is concerned, very little needs be said. Its use is practically indistinguishable from that of kipper in the places where ἐξιλάσoμαι translates it. Thus in 2 Chronicles 29: 24 the verb signifies ‘they made their blood a sin offering’, which is close to the usage we have already noted, especially to that non-cultic use of kipper wherein there is a life-for-life conception. In Ezekiel, where all the remaining examples are found, it is very difficult to find any difference between this use of ἐξιλάσoμαι and that where kipper is the underlying Hebrew. This is especially plain in Ezekiel 43 : 20 where it is impossible to say which of the two Hebrew verbs the Greek word translates.
oμαι translates it. Thus in 2 Chronicles 29: 24 the verb signifies ‘they made their blood a sin offering’, which is close to the usage we have already noted, especially to that non-cultic use of kipper wherein there is a life-for-life conception. In Ezekiel, where all the remaining examples are found, it is very difficult to find any difference between this use of ἐξιλάσoμαι and that where kipper is the underlying Hebrew. This is especially plain in Ezekiel 43 : 20 where it is impossible to say which of the two Hebrew verbs the Greek word translates.ḥillâh means ‘to appease, mollify’, and three times it occurs as the Hebrew for which ἐξιλάσoμαι is the translation (Zc. 7: 2; 8: 22; Mal. 1:9). Each time the thought of propitiation is quite clear, as Dodd notes when he calls these three occurrences ‘unmistakeable examples of the ordinary classical and Hellenistic sense of ἐξιλάσεσθαι = “to propitiate”’.308
oμαι is the translation (Zc. 7: 2; 8: 22; Mal. 1:9). Each time the thought of propitiation is quite clear, as Dodd notes when he calls these three occurrences ‘unmistakeable examples of the ordinary classical and Hellenistic sense of ἐξιλάσεσθαι = “to propitiate”’.308The use of ἐξιλάσoμαι to translate plll (‘to interpose’, hence ‘to do judgment’, or by another line of development, ‘to pray’) in Psalm 105(106) : 30 is very unusual, and despite Dodd’s objection is probably to be understood in the light of the story in Numbers. The psalmist is recalling the atonement wrought by Phinehas at the time of the sin of Baal-Peor and the translator substitutes ‘and he made propitiation’ for ‘and he interposed’, or ‘wrought judgment’.
oμαι to translate plll (‘to interpose’, hence ‘to do judgment’, or by another line of development, ‘to pray’) in Psalm 105(106) : 30 is very unusual, and despite Dodd’s objection is probably to be understood in the light of the story in Numbers. The psalmist is recalling the atonement wrought by Phinehas at the time of the sin of Baal-Peor and the translator substitutes ‘and he made propitiation’ for ‘and he interposed’, or ‘wrought judgment’.The one occurrence of ἐξιλάσoμαι as the translation of ’shm presents us with a difficulty, as the Hebrew verb means ‘to be guilty’ and it is hard to fit ἐξιλάσoμαι into this circle of ideas. Probably, as Dodd suggests, the translators were influenced by the close kinship between ’shm and ḥṭ’ in which case we must think of the passage for our present purpose as coming close to the group already considered.
oμαι as the translation of ’shm presents us with a difficulty, as the Hebrew verb means ‘to be guilty’ and it is hard to fit ἐξιλάσoμαι into this circle of ideas. Probably, as Dodd suggests, the translators were influenced by the close kinship between ’shm and ḥṭ’ in which case we must think of the passage for our present purpose as coming close to the group already considered.Thus there is nothing in the use of ἐξιλάσoμαι to translate other Hebrew roots which conflicts with the conclusions we have already reached from our study of its translation of kipper. The thought of the offering of a ransom which turns away the divine wrath from the sinner is still seen to be the basic meaning of the verb.
oμαι to translate other Hebrew roots which conflicts with the conclusions we have already reached from our study of its translation of kipper. The thought of the offering of a ransom which turns away the divine wrath from the sinner is still seen to be the basic meaning of the verb.We conclude this section by noticing the constructions used with ἐξιλάσoμαι. Since it is sometimes said that the verb is often used in the sense ‘to expiate’ it is worth noting that it is never followed by an accusative of sin in the canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament (unless we include Theodotion’s Daniel under the heading ‘canonical’). One is in Theodotion’s Daniel, where the ’seventy weeks’ decreed upon the people look like a manifestation of divine wrath (9: 24). The remaining six are in Sirach, three of them certainly referring to removal of wrath (Sir. 3: 30; 5: 6; 28: 5), and probably two more also (Sir. 20: 28; 31: 33). This evidence cannot be said to afford strong support for views which reject propitiation. It can be supported by only two passives with sin as subject (Dt. 21: 8; 1 Sa. 3: 14), in both of which it is possible to think of propitiation. The grouping of the nine accusatives of a cultic object (altar, sanctuary, etc.) with this class is not warranted, for the meaning is not the same (Lv. 16: 16, 20, 33 (twice); Ezk. 43: 20, 22, 26; 45: 18, 20; cf. also the curious accusative of ‘blood’ in 2 Ch. 29: 24). If one expiates a sin it is clean gone, but if one cleanses an altar it is still there. It seems best to recognize that the verb has a complex meaning, but to see the removal of wrath as the basic idea. Wrath could be removed with reference to a sin, or with reference to an (unclean) altar, etc.
oμαι. Since it is sometimes said that the verb is often used in the sense ‘to expiate’ it is worth noting that it is never followed by an accusative of sin in the canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament (unless we include Theodotion’s Daniel under the heading ‘canonical’). One is in Theodotion’s Daniel, where the ’seventy weeks’ decreed upon the people look like a manifestation of divine wrath (9: 24). The remaining six are in Sirach, three of them certainly referring to removal of wrath (Sir. 3: 30; 5: 6; 28: 5), and probably two more also (Sir. 20: 28; 31: 33). This evidence cannot be said to afford strong support for views which reject propitiation. It can be supported by only two passives with sin as subject (Dt. 21: 8; 1 Sa. 3: 14), in both of which it is possible to think of propitiation. The grouping of the nine accusatives of a cultic object (altar, sanctuary, etc.) with this class is not warranted, for the meaning is not the same (Lv. 16: 16, 20, 33 (twice); Ezk. 43: 20, 22, 26; 45: 18, 20; cf. also the curious accusative of ‘blood’ in 2 Ch. 29: 24). If one expiates a sin it is clean gone, but if one cleanses an altar it is still there. It seems best to recognize that the verb has a complex meaning, but to see the removal of wrath as the basic idea. Wrath could be removed with reference to a sin, or with reference to an (unclean) altar, etc.Again, God is the subject of the verb three times, followed by dative of person (Ezk. 16: 63), by περί (Sir. 16: 7), and by ὑπέρ (2 Ch. 30: 18). Not much can be made of this, however, because in the first and last of these the verb is in the passive, and the sense is ‘be propitiated’. With these two passives which have God as the subject should be classed three passages with God as the object and where the meaning clearly is ‘propitiate’ (Zc. 7: 2; 8: 22; Mal. I : 9). The idea of propitiation is found also with a human object (Gn. 32: 20), while the one accusative of ‘wrath’ (Pr. 16: 14) has much the same meaning. The verb is most often used in a personal sense, the commonest construction being περί with genitive of person, ‘to make propitiation concerning a person’ (58 times, e.g. Ex. 30: 15, 16; Lv. 1: 4). Sometimes περί of s’m is added (Lv. 4: 35), or ἀπό of sin (Lv. 4: 26) or of uncleanness (Lv. 15: 15, 30). Once we fmd ὑπέρ of person (Ezk. 45: 17), and once ἐπί with animal (Lv. 16: 10).
For the rest, the verb is used absolutely ten times (as Lv. 6: 30), with περί of sin twice (Ex. 32: 30; Lv. 5: 10), with περί or ἐπί of things four times (Ex. 30: 10; Lv. 8: 15; 14: 53; 16: 18), and there are two passives, one with the land as subject, and one where the verb is impersonal with dative of person (Nu. 35: 33; 1 Sa. 6: 3).
These constructions reveal that the word is used in a variety of ways, but there is no preponderance of expressions which could be construed of expiation of sin. Rather the emphasis seems to be on the relation between persons, a fact which accords better with a meaning like ‘propitiate’ than ‘expiate’. It is clear that ἐξιλάσoμαι in the LXX is a complex word, but the averting of anger seems to represent a stubborn substratum of meaning from which all the usages can be naturally explained. This is so even in the case when God is subject, for, while the Old Testament is emphatic about the reality and seriousness of the wrath of God, the removal of that wrath is due in the last resort to God Himself. ‘He will many times >turn away his anger’ (Ps. 77(78): 38 (LXX); cf. also Jb. 14: 13; Ps. 85: 4-6; Pr. 24: 18; Is. 48: 9; 57: 16; 60:10).
oμαι in the LXX is a complex word, but the averting of anger seems to represent a stubborn substratum of meaning from which all the usages can be naturally explained. This is so even in the case when God is subject, for, while the Old Testament is emphatic about the reality and seriousness of the wrath of God, the removal of that wrath is due in the last resort to God Himself. ‘He will many times >turn away his anger’ (Ps. 77(78): 38 (LXX); cf. also Jb. 14: 13; Ps. 85: 4-6; Pr. 24: 18; Is. 48: 9; 57: 16; 60:10).To sum up: I accept the verdict of such scholars as Westcott and Dodd that in the Old Testament there is not the usual pagan sense of a crude propitiation of an angry deity, and that this is shown in the use of ἱλάσxομαι, etc. in the LXX. The one example with God as the subject of the verb (other than in the passive), the paucity of examples of its use with Him as the object, and the study of the Hebrew words translated by ἱλάσxομαι and its cognates all alike draw us to this conclusion. In the foregoing treatment we have not been greatly concerned to defend this point of view, but this should not be understood as minimizing its significance. It is of the utmost importance that we should understand that propitiation in the crude sense is not possible with the God of Israel, and that the Greek words used reflect this view of the deity. We cannot be too grateful to Dodd and others for their convincing demonstration of this truth.
However, in their anxiety to do justice to this great truth, these scholars seem to go too far. When we reach the stage where we must say, ‘When the LXX translators used “propitiation” they did not mean “propitiation” ’, it is surely time to call a halt. No sensible man uses one word when he means another, and in view of the otherwise invariable Greek use it would seem impossible for anyone in the first century to have used one of the ἱλάσxομαι group without conveying to his readers some idea of propitiation.
It is contended that while care is taken to avoid the crude use natural to pagans, yet the words of the ἱλάσομαι group as used in the LXX were not eviscerated of their meaning, nor were they given an entirely new meaning. Rather there is a definite continuity, and in particular the removal of wrath seems to be definitely in view when this word-group is used. We have noticed that in many passages where one or other of these words is used there is a plain statement that Yahweh is angry, and in others there is a clear implication that this is so, and these passages (taken in conjunction with the essential meaning of ἱλάσxομαι, etc.) must be held to set the tone for the rest.
ομαι group as used in the LXX were not eviscerated of their meaning, nor were they given an entirely new meaning. Rather there is a definite continuity, and in particular the removal of wrath seems to be definitely in view when this word-group is used. We have noticed that in many passages where one or other of these words is used there is a plain statement that Yahweh is angry, and in others there is a clear implication that this is so, and these passages (taken in conjunction with the essential meaning of ἱλάσxομαι, etc.) must be held to set the tone for the rest.Examination of this word-group brought us inevitably into the circle of ideas associated with kipper, where we have seen reason for postulating a close connection between kipper and kōpher. This further strengthens the conclusion that ἱλάσxομαι, etc., retain the idea of putting away the divine anger, since it means that in the cultus itself there is the thought of a ransom being paid, a ransom which we may not unjustly regard as a propitiation. As the Jewish Encyclopedia puts it: ‘Every sacrifice may be considered thus as a kofer, in the original sense a propitiatory gift.‘309
Thus we conclude that the sense of propitiation seems to be established from the passages in which ἱλάσxομαι and its cognates occur.
V. CONCLUSION
The preceding sections have shown that the wrath of God is a conception which cannot be eradicated from the Old Testament without irreparable loss. It is not the monopoly of one or two writers, but pervades the entire corpus so that there is no important section of which it can be said, ‘Here the wrath of God is unknown!’ The ubiquity of the concept must be stressed, because of the tendency in some circles today to overlook it or to explain it away. The concept may need to be understood carefully, but it is so much part and parcel of the Old Testament that, if we ignore it, we cannot possibly enter into a proper appreciation of the Hebrew view of God or of man.
Above everything else, the concept of the wrath of God stresses the seriousness of sin. On the Old Testament view sin is not just a mere peccadillo which a kindly, benevolent God will regard as of no great consequence. On the contrary, the God of the Old Testament is One who loves righteousness (Pss. 33: 5; 48: 10; etc.), and whose attitude to unrighteousness can be described as hatred. ‘These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth with his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates: and let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath; for all these are things that I hate, saith the Lord’ (Zc. 8:16f.) is a typical statement. And not only does God hate sin, He hates sinners also: ‘The Lord trieth the righteous; but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he shall rain snares; fire and brimstone and burning wind shall be the portion of their cup. For the Lord is righteous; he loveth righteousness’, etc. (Ps. 11: 5-7). Such passages reveal the strongest possible repulsion in the face of everything that is evil. It is from the very heart of a God who not only loves His people but also hates evil that there proceeds such pleading as, ‘I sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them, saying, Oh do not this abominable thing that I hate’ (Je. 44: 4). Not surprisingly, we find passages in which those who love God are called upon to exercise the same attitude, ‘O ye that love the Lord, hate evil’ (Ps. 97: 10).
Modern men find a difficulty with this aspect of the Old Testament teaching, in part at least because they have so well learned that God is love. But it is important to notice that this was a truth known and valued by men of Old Testament times. They apparently did not find it insuperably difficult to combine the ideas that God loved them and that He hated all evil and would punish it severely. Both thoughts are emphasized, for example, in Hosea’s prophecy. On the one hand we have the beautiful picture of Yahweh wooing the nation (2: 14f.), statements such as, ‘I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love’ (11: 4), or ‘How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my compassions are kindled together. I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim’ (11: 8f.), and the unforgettable picture of a father teaching a baby son to walk in 11:1-3. On the other hand we have the most categorical statements of God’s loathing of the evil that was in the nation coupled with the certainty of divine visitation and punishment: ‘All their wickedness is in Gilgal; for there I hated them: because of the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house: I will love them no more; all their princes are revolters. Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay the beloved fruit of their womb. My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations’ (9: 15-17); ‘He hath cast off thy calf, O Samaria; mine anger is kindled against them’ (8: 5) ; ‘For Israel hath forgotten his Maker, and builded palaces; and Judah hath multiplied fenced cities: but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour the castles thereof’ (8: 14).
Such examples could be multiplied from many parts of the Old Testament, and they demand some explanation. It is open to us to say that there are divergent ideas which have not been harmonized; but if we are to be true to the records we cannnot simply say that half the evidence does not exist. But in view of the fact that we have both truths expressed, and expressed very strongly, by one man as we have just seen (and what is true ofHosea is also true of other Old Testament figures), it seems better to say that divine love and the divine wrath are compatible aspects of the divine nature. There is a divine wrath, but if we may put it this way, it is always exercised with a certain tenderness. Even when He is angry with man’s sin God loves man and is concerned for his well-being in the fullest sense. There is a divine love, but it is not a careless sentimentality indifferent to the moral integrity of the loved ones. Rather it is a love which is a purifying fire, blazing against everything that hinders the loved ones from being the very best that they can be.
Indeed wrath may be thought of as especially wrath against the loved ones for, as J. Fichtner points out,310 wrath is connected much more often with the covenant name ‘Jehovah’ than with any other of the divine names. There are times when the wrath of God is spoken of as directed against the heathen, and the importance of these passages should not be minimized (wrath is directed against all evil). But more often wrath is God’s reaction against sin in His chosen people, in those whom He loves.
Much, it would seem, depends on what we understand by wrath. If we think of an uncontrollable outburst of passion, then we have a pagan conception, completely inapplicable to the God of the Old Testament.311 But if we think rather of a wrath which is the reverse side of a holy love, a flame which sears but purifies, then we have a conception which is valuable not only for an understanding of the ancient Scriptures, but also for any right conception of the nature of God. ‘Neither doth he abhor anything that is evil’ (Ps. 36: 4, Prayer Book version) is a terrible condemnation of a man’s character. The Hebrews did not ascribe such moral flabbiness to the God they worshipped.
It is against such a background that the Old Testament idea of propitiation is to be studied. Where there is sin, the Old Testament teaches, there is wrath. But this does not mean that all men are to be consumed, for that wrath is the wrath of a loving father who yearns for His children to come to Him.312 There is forgiveness with God, and this forgiveness necessarily involves the laying aside of wrath.313 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 flropitiation. Such a passage as Leviticus 17: 11, ‘For the life of the pesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls’, clearly indicates the position.314 The cultus may well be regarded as a means of turning away the wrath of God from the sinner by the offering of a kōpher; but it is so, not because the God of Israel can be bought, but because He has given to the people this means of averting wrath. That it is not an unconditional means many passages in the prophets and elsewhere plainly show. The cultus does not work like a bribe, but it is the divinely appointed way of removing wrath, of propitiation. As P. T. Forsyth puts it: ‘Atonement in the Old Testament was not the placating of God’s anger, but the sacrament of God’s grace. It was the expression of God’s anger on the one hand and the expression and putting in action of God’s grace on the other hand.... The sacrifices were in themselves prime acts of obedience to God’s means of grace and His expressed will.‘315
Thus, our conviction that ἱλάxομαι and its cognates include as an integral part of their meaning the turning away of wrath rests partly on the examination of the occurrences of these words in the Septuagint, and partly on the fact that, quite apart from the words themselves, there is a formidable body of evidence that the wrath of God was a conception to be reckoned with on the Old Testament view. These two lines of thought reinforce one another and lead us to the conclusion that, on the biblical view, an element of wrath inheres in the divine nature, but that, by God’s own appointment, this wrath may be averted. This averting we may properly term ‘propitiation’, if that word is understood as excluding the pagan idea of a process of celestial bribery. It may have to be used with care, but there is no reason for jettisoning it altogether.