II. THE ἱλάσ ομι WORD-GROUP IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

I. THE WRATH OF GOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

II. THE ἱλάσομι WORD-GROUP IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

a. ἱλαοτήριον

The form of the word does not help us much, for the meaning of the -τηρoν termination is not completely clear. There are examples of its use for place, as ἀρoατήρoν, and also for means as σωτήρoν, and there are not wanting advocates for either meaning as the correct one for ἱλαοτήριον ³²⁹ It is plain that the usage and not the form must decide the question.

By the same criterion we take it to be the neuter noun rather than the masculine, although this latter seems to be understood by some of the Latin versions with their propitiatorem³³⁴ (according to Sanday and Headlam the Syriac is ambiguous, but may be meant to support this reading). This understanding of the term has had some distinguished supporters, James Morison for example citing Wyclif ‘an helpere’, Purvey ‘forgiver’, Cranmer ‘the obtainer of mercy’, Erasmus ‘reconciler’ (though he also gives the more usual ‘propitiatory’), Melanchthon ‘propitiatory’, and others,³³⁵ while to these E. H. Gifford adds Aquinas, Estius and van Hengel.³³⁶ Despite these great names this understanding of our term is to be rejected, for in the first place, such a use of įλαστήρoν does not seem to be attested from antiquity, and in the second, if this is what Paul wished to say there seems no reason why he should not have used įλαστής.

‘3. The ledge of the altar ( ).

1.The main reason for thinking this is that, in the LXX, įλατήρoν is usually the translation for kappōreth. Hatch and Redpath list twenty passages (out of twenty-seven where įλαστήρoν is found) where it renders this Hebrew word. LXX usage, it is argued, would be decisive for St. Paul, and thus we must think that in Romans 3 he means by įλαστήρoν what the LXX translators characteristically meant by it.

But what is this LXX usage? In the first place the almost invariable habit of the translators of the Old Testament into Greek was to use the article, the only exception being in the first place where the word occurs, and there it is not alone, but in company with ἐπįθεμα. This unusual translation of kappōreth has been the cause of much speculation, but for our present purpose we note that ἐπįθεμα may well have served much the same purpose as the article. The article indicates that it is not ‘a propitiating thing’ but ‘the propitiating thing’ which is meant, and ἐπįθεμα likewise has the effect of removing įλαστήρoν from the realm of the general. In view of the fact that Exodus 25: 16(17) seems to mean, ’thou shalt make a kappōreth of pure gold’, it may well have seemed gratuitous to introduce an article in the Greek. On the other hand, to make įλαστήρoν anarthrous would have been to leave it very general, perhaps even unintelligible, in view of the wide range of meaning covered by the term, and thus something different was required. Once the idea had been introduced there was no difficulty in pointing back to ‘the propitiating thing’, and thus the need for such a rendering did not arise again.

Other explanations than the one put forward above have been offered and, for example, Deissmann thinks that įλαστήρoν means ‘propitiatory thing’, ἐπįθεμα being added at its first occurrence to show just exactly what it is that is meant. Büchsel thinks that įλαστήρoν here is an adjective qualifying ἐπįθεμα: ‘From this it is evident that τò įλαστήρoν of itself does not mean a spatial object, but the atoning thing in general (das Suhnende ganz allgemein).’³³⁹

It may be that there is some such significance in the fact that this translation occurs in the first place where the expression is met, but one wonders whether we are not asking for rather more in the way of consistency from the LXX translators than they always supply to us. įλαστήρoν ἐπįθεμα, ‘propitiatory cover’, is a not unintelligible rendering of kappōreth, and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, after using this once, the translators slipped later on into the simpler įλαστήρoν without there being any profound significance in the process.³⁴⁰

Then we must notice that when they use įλαστήρoν to translate kappōreth the LXX translators always have something in the context to make clear which propitiating thing įλαστήρoν is to denote. is to denote. There is never a passage where this word denotes the kappōreth without some clear indication of what is meant, e.g. the mention of the ark of the covenant, or of the cherubim, or both. As a matter of fact there is something similar where it denotes other things. Thus in Ezekiel, though the meaning of ‘settle’ or ‘ledge’ is not perfectly clear, the context clearly connects the term with the altar (Ezk. 43: 14, 17, 20), and when Symmachus uses the term of the ark (Gn. 6: 16(15), Heb. tēbhâh), the context makes plain what is meant. The same might be said of Philo, who speaks of the cover or lid of the ark and goes on to explain that it is called the įλαστήρoν. What makes Amos 9:1 so difficult to interpret as it stands, and strengthens our conviction that the LXX rests on a misreading of the Hebrew, is precisely this, that the context gives no indication of what is meant. In the one place where kappōreth occurs without mention of the ark, etc., namely 1 Chronicles 28: 11, the LXX renders with ἐξλασμός. This reading raises difficulties of its own, but the point is that įλαστήρoν by itself was evidently not regarded as definite enough to point us to the kappōreth.

We must also bear in mind the significance of the Ezekiel and Amos passages, where įλαστήρoν is used of objects other than the kappōreth. Amos 9: 1 (unless based on a lost Hebrew variant) is the result of misreading the Massoretic text or mistranslation, but the point is that the reader of the LXX would come across įλαστήρoν at this point where he would hardly understand it to refer to the kappōreth. So with the five references in Ezekiel. They very clearly have no connection with the kappōreth, but they must be included as part of the LXX usage.

I do not see how the conclusion is to be avoided that, even on LXX premises, anarthrous įλαστήρoν does not necessarily denote the mercy-seat. The word itself means ‘propitiatory’, and if the mercy-seat could be so designated, so also could one of the ledges on Ezekiel’s altar (or even Noah’s ark, according to Symmachus). įλαστήρoν might denote the kappōreth, but that was because it referred to its function, and not because it formed an exact translation of the Hebrew term. If the kappōreth was ‘propitiatory’, so too were other things.

2.T. W. Manson contends that, in Christian literature outside the New Testament, įλαστήρoν denotes a place. He goes on to reason that in Romans 3 it will conformably denote ‘the place where the mercy of God was supremely manifested’.³⁴¹ The passages to which he draws attention are those where įλαστήρoν denotes the sanctuary, the whole church, and a monastery. But if we ask why churches might be termed įλαστήρα we are answered in the words of Johannes Kameniates, that they are ‘as it were propitiatory gifts dedicated by the community to the deity (ὤσπερ τνὰ oνὰ πρòς τò θεĩoν įλαστήρoν)’.³⁴² And if this is so for churches, it probably explains the use of the same term for monasteries and sanctuaries.

Manson also sees the sense of place in references to the įλαστήρoν in Ezekiel. ‘They mark the place where the altar stands and the sacrificial ritual is performed.’³⁴³ There may be a hint at location here, but in such an expression as ‘place of atonement’ it is atonement rather than place to which this word directs our attention. It is along these lines that we must understand the references in the lexicographers Hesychius and Cyril. Manson’s statement that the two treat įλαστήρoνand θυαστήρoν ’as practically interchangeable terms’ seems a little too definite. Hesychius defines įλαστήρoν as ‘αθάρσoν θυσαστήρoν This appears to mean that the explanation he prefers is αθάρσoν though, on occasion, the word may signify θυσαστήρoν In his footnote to Hesychius, Joannes Alberti cites Cyril’s explanation ‘θυσαστήρoν, ἐν ᾦ πρoσαϕέρε (legend. videtur πρoσϕέρε) περį ἁμαρων’. It is not that įλαστήρoν and θυσαστήρoν in themselves are of similar meaning, but that that aspect of the latter in which it appears as cleansing from sin brings it into the circle of meaning of the former. It is the altar in its propitiatory aspect which may be denoted by įλαστήρoν.

So is it with the sanctuary. It is there that rites take place directed towards the averting of punishment due to sin and the inclining of the Deity to be favourable, and accordingly from one aspect the sanctuary may be regarded as įλαστήρoν.

Thus in none of these passages is there any stress on the notion of place, and it seems better to regard įλαστήρoν as denoting ‘means of propitiation’ than a place. This is much more applicable also in the case of the references to Noah’s ark (which Manson adduces), for the ark would not naturally be interpreted as a place.

3.The concept of Christ as a įλαστήρoν is connected in Romans 3 with the law and the prophets (Rom. 3 : 21f.), and Büchsel³⁴⁴ and others urge that we must see accordingly a reference to the central point in the expiation of sin according to the Torah, namely the Day of Atonement ceremonies.

This is hardly a convincing argument. If on other grounds we could establish the connection of įλαστήρoν as applied to Christ with the Day of Atonement ceremonies, this would be an interesting confirmation, but of itself it carries little weight. The reference to law is in verse 21, that to įλαστήρoν in verse 25, and there is nothing to show that the two are thought of as being in close connection. Again, it does not appear why we should link įλαστήρoν with the law rather than with the prophets. Further, it is not the įλαστήρoν which is witnessed by the law and the prophets, but the righteousness of God, and however closely we think of these as being connected, they are not the same thing.

4.T. W. Manson suggests that Romans 13 ‘is really an elaborate confession of sin for all mankind, with its climax at iii. 23’, and that it ‘is followed immediately by a description of the death of Christ which can be properly understood only by being brought into relation to the ritual acts of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement’,³⁴⁵ this being apparently a reference to the ‘in his blood’.

This, too, is difficult to accept. As a confession of sin Romans 13 must surely be unique with its ‘the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men’ (1: 18), the threefold ‘God gave them up’ (1: 24, 26, 28), ‘thou art without excuse, 0 man’ (2: 1), ‘reckonest thou this, 0 man’ (2: 3), ‘we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin’ (3: 9). This is not penitence, but polemic. The gist of Paul’s argument is not ‘Let us confess sin that an atonement may be found for us’,³⁴⁶ but, ‘All are sinners whether they acknowledge it or not, and are in need of the atonement which God, on His own initiative, provided’.

5.The emphatic αυτoυ in the expression εν τω αυτoυ αʿματ is strongly urged by Gifford, who, indeed, makes it his prime consideration in urging a reference to the mercy-seat, his idea being that the kappōreth was sprinkled with the blood of sacrifices, but Christ was propitiatory in His own blood.

But in the first place the αυτoυ does not seem to be so emphatic that it will carry all this,³⁴⁷ and in the second, even allowing it to be emphatic, it might well be understood otherwise. For, apart from Christ’s sacrifice, however propitiation be thought to be effected, be it by sacrifice, offering of votive gifts, Noah’s ark, a church or sanctuary or what you will, it is always by something external. But Christ obtained propitiation by His own blood.

6.The Greek Fathers from Origen onwards seem usually to take įλαστήρoν in the sense of the mercy-seat.³⁴⁸ This is impressive, but while paying due respect to this weight of opinion, we must remember that the Fathers who mention the term were separated by centuries from the apostle, and their understanding of the term cannot be held to be decisive.

Nygren gives a touch of objectivity to this argument by referring to the context. He lists a number of concepts associated with the mercy-seat, and proceeds: ‘These are the thoughts that Paul has in mind. He presents the same concepts - the manifestation of God, God’s wrath, His glory, the blood, the mercy seat.‘³⁵⁰ But none of these things necessarily directs attention to the kappōreth. God might manifest Himself in a burning bush; His wrath might be put away by means other than the ceremonies associated with the kappōreth (as in Ex. 22: 1014); His glory is everywhere to be seen in the Old Testament, and does not seem to be at all closely linked with the kappōreth; the blood was far more often sprinkled elsewhere than on the kappōreth. None of these ideas leads us naturally and inevitably to the kappōreth, and even their conjunction seems perfectly explicable in terms of the great general idea which Paul was unfolding, and without reference to the mercy-seat.

Thus, while the evidence for seeing in įλαστήρoν a reference to the Day of Atonement ceremonies cannot be said to be inconsiderable or lacking in variety, it is not by any means irrefutable. Let us turn now to considerations which may be urged on the other side.³⁵¹

1.There is first and foremost the fact that įλαστήρoν is in use to denote a wide variety of objects, as we have already noted, and that it has no necessary connection with the Day of Atonement. Outside the Old Testament its usual meaning was ‘votive gift’,³⁵² and it is clear that the word in itself is connected with the removal of the divine wrath without being specially linked with any one means of accomplishing this.³⁵³ Of course, it is quite possible that within a particular group of people, say the Jews or the Christians, it may have acquired a technical meaning, but for this we require evidence. We have already noted that, while the LXX often uses įλαστήρoν of the kappōreth, this is not invariable, and even where it is found, the article is prefixed, and there is some reference in the context to the ark or the cherubim. We find this usage in the only other place in the New Testament where įλαστήρoν occurs, namely Hebrews 9: 4, 5, ‘the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold ... and above it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat’. Here the writer mentions both the ark and the cherubim, and he uses the article with įλαστήρoν. But all three are absent from Romans 3, and we must recognize that what Paul says is that Christ was set forth to be ‘a propitiation’ not ‘the propitiation’, while the context is barren of any reference to surrounding objects of furniture. It is very difficult to see in this general term, used in a general way, an allusion to a specific article of the Temple furniture. Contrast the way in which Paul refers to the Passover in I Corinthians 5 : 7, τò πάσχα ἡμων where the article and the pronoun reinforce the natural meaning of the term πάσχα to make the meaning clear.³⁵⁴ There is no equivalent in Romans 3.

2.The usage of authors of the period like Josephus and Philo is against a connection with the Day of Atonement. Josephus uses the word, not with reference to the kappōreth, but as an attributive adjective, referring to a white stone as a ’propitiatory monument (įλαστήρoν μνημα)’,³⁵⁵ while when he refers to the kappōreth he calls it ἐπθεμα.³⁵⁶

It is sometimes said that Philo uses the term to denote the kappōreth but this does not quite meet the situation. Several times he calls the kappōreth by some such name as ἐπθεμα or πωμα and proceeds to explain that it is called įλαστήρoν in the Scripture.³⁵⁷ While he could hardly expect the Greek public for which he wrote to have a detailed knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, and thus his explanations should not be held to prove too much, yet they show that the general public of his day had a clear idea of what įλαστήρoν meant, and this idea was not the kappōreth.

It may not be without interest that a modern Jewish writer like J. Klausner does not recognize a reference to the kappōreth in Paul’s use of įλαστήρoν. In fact he explicitly contrasts the two, preferring in Paul the sense of ‘propitiatory death’ as with the Maccabean martyrs. He says, ’Paul made use of the word hilastērion of IV Macc. 17: 22 in the very same sense (Rom. 3: 25), while in the LXX this word is the translation of kapporet (“mercy-seat” or “arkcover”) .’³⁵⁸

5.It is also to be taken into consideration that the kappōreth belonged to past history, and had not been sprinkled with blood for centuries, so that we are not dealing with some contemporary practice. The rite of sprinkling the blood was carried out, as we see from the Mishnah,³⁶⁰ but there was no kappōreth to sprinkle. Instead the sprinkling was done on the traditional site of the ark, namely a stone three finger-breadths high called ’ebhen sh^ethiyyâh.³⁶¹ The sprinkling then was regularly carried out on a known site, with a name of its own, and this name neither kappōreth nor įλαστήρoν. Nor can it be argued that this sprinkling would be little known, for it is mentioned in the Mishnah, in Josephus³⁶² and other places.³⁶³ It would have been known to any who took an interest in the Jewish Day of Atonement ceremonies, because of the importance of the blood manipulation, and one who took no such interest would not detect an allusion to the Day of Atonement ceremonies in Paul’s words.

This difficulty is met in part by the consideration that the synagogue and not the Temple had become the focus of Judaism. Men were more used to hearing the Torah read than to seeing the sacrificial ritual performed, and the argument runs that they would accordingly be familiar with the kappōreth from its being mentioned in the Scriptures. But while there is some force in this, it does not seem decisive. In the first place the kappōreth is not mentioned with great frequency in the Scriptures (outside Exodus-Leviticus it occurs only once in Numbers and once in 1 Chronicles). And in the second place it is not the kind of thing that forces itself on the attention. Deissmann could say, ’the out-of-the-way passages referring to the įλαστήρoν may very well have remained unknown even to a Christian who was conversant with the LXX: how many Bible readers of to-day, nay, how many theologians of to-day - who, at least, should be Bible readers, - if their readings have been unforced ... are acquainted with the kappōreth?’³⁶⁴

6.The verb πρoέθετo is congruous with the idea of a general means of propitiation, but not so much so with that of the kappōreth if, as most scholars hold, it is to be understood in the sense of ‘publicly set forth’. This is not absolutely certain, for in the only two other places where this verb occurs in the New Testament (Rom. 1:13 and Eph. 1: 9), it means ‘to set before the mind’, ‘to purpose’,³⁶⁵ a meaning which would give good sense here. The use of the middle would favour it too, but we would anticipate that it would be followed by the infinitive. For grammatical reasons such as this, and because of the excellent sense ‘set forth publicly’ gives in this context (which contains a number of expressions indicative of publicity), most accept this as the true meaning.³⁶⁶ This is rather against the idea ‘mercy-seat’ for įλαστήρoν for the kappōreth was hidden away and not in the public view. Indeed what went on at the kappōreth was the very part of the Day of Atonement ceremonies that was not at all public. It does not quite meet this to say that there is a contrast between the secret kappōreth and the public setting forth of Christ, for, for this to be the case, įλαστήρoν must be recognized immediately as pointing to the kappōreth. Such a contrast can be effective only if the term used is sufficiently unambiguous for the allusion to be detected. But this is not the case with įλαστήρoν.

7.The similarity of Romans 3 and 4 Maccabees 17: 22 may be of significance. There we read of the death of the seven brothers, and the passage proceeds ‘they having as it were become a ransom for the nation’s sin; and through the blood of these righteous men and τoυ įλαστήρoν θανάτoυ αυτων (or τoυ įλαστήρoν τoυ θανάτoυ αυτων) the divine Providence delivered Israel that before was evil entreated’. The wrath of God was conceived of as resting on the people (see 2 Macc. 7: 32-8), and the death of the brothers is viewed as a propitiatory offering which would avail to turn away this wrath. Thus we have several similarities with the Romans passage - both view the wrath of God as being active, both refer to blood being shed, 4 Maccabees thinks of the death as a ransom (αντυχoν) and Romans 3 as redemption (απoλυτρωσς), both regard the death as vicarious, and both see the hand of God in it. All this creates a strong presumption that the term įλαστήρoν is used with similar meaning in the two passages. It is not necessary to assume dependence : it is simply that the ideas being expressed in the two passages are similar.³⁶⁷

While this examination of the evidence shows that it is difficult to give a final proof either way, yet it is contended that the balance of probability is strongly in the direction of seeing in įλαστήρoν in Romans 3 a general reference to the removal of the wrath of God, rather than a specific reference either to the mercy-seat, or to the Day of Atonement ceremonies.

The other point of controversy about įλαστήρoν in Romans 3 is whether we should understand it in terms of propitiation or of expiation. A considerable number of recent writers profess the latter. There is nothing in the immediate context which decides the point. But we may obtain help from the wider context. The first three chapters of Romans (after the opening remarks) form a closely-knit piece of reasoning in which the apostle unfolds his conception of the way in which a man comes to be accepted with God. In 1: 15 he mentions preaching the gospel, and this leads him to consider the essential nature of the gospel, which he sees in the >thought of ‘a righteousness of God’ being at work, and of the just living by faith (Rom. 1 : 16, 17).

It is in this context that the critical passage 3 : 21-26 must be studied. The whole force of the preceding portion of the Epistle has been to demonstrate that all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, lie under the condemnation and the wrath of God. The two conceptions we have seen to be intertwined, and neither can be separated out from the argument. But now, Paul says, a new factor enters the situation. The whole effect of the law had been to show that men are blameworthy before God, that they are sinners (Rom. 3 : 20). But now, quite apart from the law, there is a righteousness of God revealed, a righteousness leading to the sinner’s justification through the work of Christ ’whom God set forth įλαστήρoν’. The context demands for this term a meaning which includes the idea of propitiation, for Paul has brought heavy artillery to bear in demonstrating that God’s wrath and judgment are against the sinner.³⁷⁰ And, while other expressions in verses 21-26 may be held to deal with the judgment aspect, there is nothing other than this word to express the turning away of the wrath. Wrath has occupied such an important place in the argument leading up to this section that we are justified in looking for some expression indicative of its cancellation in the process which brings about salvation. More than expiation is required, for to speak of expiation is to deal in sub-personal categories, as Horace Bushnell long ago pointed out,³⁷¹ whereas the relationship between God and man must be thought of as personal in the fullest sense.

This does not conflict with that other main thought of this passage that the righteousness of God is revealed in the means whereby men are justified. It is true that there is a certain stress on this revelation (cf. verses 21, 25, 26), but mere revelation as such has no power to free men from sin. What has the power to do this is the particular action which is revealed, a propitiatory action whereby the wrath of God is averted and men arc brought into a new relationship with God, and this action is essentially substitutionary. As Büchsel puts it: ‘But revelation and substitution form here no contradiction, but the revelation among men only takes place when simultaneously a substitution for men finds place ... A revelation without substitution would not surpass the law in legal efficacy, and thus would not bring men effectual απoλυτρωσς.’³⁷² Or again, he says in a note that that which is only a declaration ‘would bring no more than a condemnation of sin, not an overcoming of sin, which comes about through this that He who reveals God, dying for the sinner, stands in his place’.³⁷³

b. įλάσoμα

Since the verb is used on but two occasions in the whole New Testament, and one of these does not refer to the work of Christ for men (Lk. 18: 13), this section reduces to an examination of Hebrews 2: 17. There the true humanity of Christ is said to be necessary so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the things of God ες τò λάσεσθα τας ἁμαρτας τoυ λαoυ. This verse presents us with some difficulties and we will examine them in order.

First of all, whereas in many of the Old Testament passages in which this and cognate words are used we have seen a reference implicit or explicit to the wrath of God, this is lacking here. This, however, is not conclusive, if only for the reason that there is nothing in the context to compel us to give up the idea of wrath. Accordingly, in the last resort, we must be guided by the plain meaning of the term in contexts where the wrath is unmistakable. But there are some indications that wrath may be in mind here. One of them is the fact that Christ is said to be a ‘merciful’ high priest in His atoning action. This word indicates that sinners were in no good case. They could look only for severe punishment as a recompense for their evil deeds, a thought which reminds us of what is called ‘the wrath of God’ in other passages. Another is that Christ is said to be a high priest ‘in things pertaining to God’, thus directing our minds to the Godward rather than the manward aspect of atonement.³⁷⁴ A Godward aspect expressed by ἱλάσοµα is likely to include propitiation, to put it mildly.

Then the accusative after the verb attracts our attention, for, despite much that is written these days, it is a very unusual construction. We have already examined the one example in profane Greek³⁷⁵ and have seen that it may well be held to involve the idea of propitiation. Much is made by some scholars of the fact that it is to be found in the Greek Old Testament. There is, however, only one accusative of sin after ἱλάσοµα, while after ἐξλάσοµα there are none in the canonical Scriptures (though one occurs in the Theodotianic text of Dn. 9: 24 and there are six in Sirach). In one or possibly two places the verb is in the passive with sin as its subject. This cannot be said to be a very impressive list when we remember that the two verbs occur 116 times between them, and that there are four or five places where the construction is accusative of person with the plain meaning ‘appease, propitiate’.

The six examples of the accusative of sin in Sirach are of interest, more especially in view of the fact that it is sometimes said that with this construction these verbs have the meaning ‘expiate’. But these passages say things like, ‘And say not, His compassion is great; he will be pacified for the multitude of my sins: for mercy and wrath are with him, and his indignation will rest upon sinners’ (Sir. 5:6). The meaning here is obviously that the man who complacently trusts that God’s mercy will be his salvation will find that God’s wrath is extended towards him. Even though there is an accusative of sin the context shows that the verb includes an element of propitiation, and the same is true in probably five out of the six examples.³⁷⁶ Since it is at least arguable that the examples in Psalm 64(65) : 4 and Daniel 9: 24 (Th.) are also best understood if the thought of propitiation is included, it would seem that there is not much ground for thinking that this construction does away with the thought of averting wrath. Rather the contrary would seem to be true, that the accusative of sin after ἱλασοµα or ἐξλάσοµα in the few places where it occurs, seems generally to imply propitiation.

It should further be borne in mind that in the New Testament period the accusative often replaces a prepositional construction with little if any change of meaning. Thus ἀπορέω ‘to be perplexed’ is followed by περί (Lk. 24: 4 and In. 13 : 22) ; but in Acts 25 : 20 we have the accusative, although the meaning appears to be much the same. Similarly εὐδοέω is usually followed by έν (Mt. 3 : 17; 1 Cor. 10 : 5, etc.), but the direct object is found (Mt. 12 : 18³⁷⁷). Compare also πενθέω ἐπί (Rev. 18 : 11), accusative (2 Cor. 12: 21); λαίω ἐπί (Lk. 19 : 41 ; 23 : 28), accusative (Mt. 2 : 18); θαυµάζω ἐπί (Lk. 2 : 33), or περί (Lk. 2 : 18), accusative (Lk. 7 : 9 ; 24 : 12) ; ὑποµµνήσω περί (2 Pet. 1 : 12), accusative (Jn. 14 : 26) ; δαµαρτύροµα ἐνώπον (2 Tim. 4 : 1), accusative (2 Tim. 4 : 1) ;³⁷⁸ óπτοµα ἐπί (Rev. 1 : 7 ; 18 : 9), accusative (Lk. 8: 52) ; ϕοβέοµα ἀπó (Lk. 12 : 4), accusative (Mt. 10 : 28) ; ὀµνύω ἐν (Mt. 23 : 16) or ατά (Heb. 6 : 3), accusative (Jas. 5 : 12) ; ϕεύγω ἀπó (1 Cor. 10: 14), accusative (1 Cor. 6: 18) ; ϕυάσσω ἀπó (Lk. 12 : 15), accusative (Acts 21 : 25).

The point of such examples as these is not that they form exact parallels to ἱλάσοµα, for this might well be disputed at least in some of the cases, but that they demonstrate that among the New Testament writers there was great freedom in the use of constructions. In particular the accusative was often used in places where we would hardly have anticipated it, and where satisfactory prepositional constructions were available and in use. Under these circumstances it does not seem wise to lay great stress upon the occurrence of the accusative in Hebrews 2 : 17. In the case of none of the verbs above can it be said that its meaning has been seriously modified by using the accusative instead of the prepositional construction, and accordingly it may fairly be asked, Why should we believe that it is otherwise with ἱλάσοµα?

A further point is that there are some manuscripts which read ταĩς ἁµαρτίας instead of τᾶς ἁµαρτίας in this verse; Moffatt cites ‘A 5. 33. 623. 913, Athan. Chrys. Bentley, etc.’ This is a surprisingly impressive list, although we need not take the reading very seriously if we are endeavouring to arrive at the true text. There seems no doubt that some scribe or scribes altered the accusative to the dative, a case which occurs much more often in this connection. But the fact that this variant has arisen shows that the accusative was felt to be a difficult construction after ἱλάσοµα. This seems to indicate that the alleged meaning of ‘expiate’ was not one which was accepted in the circles in which this variant arose.

Thus there is no really good reason for denying to ἱλάσοµα in this verse its usual significance. The objections usually alleged are seen on examination to be of little weight, whereas there are not wanting some indications that the word is used in its normal sense. As we saw in our section on the Old Testament usage, the normal use of the verb with regard to the sacrifices is one which includes an element of propitiation, and this element seems clearly to be implied in this verse also in the priestly activity of Christ.

↑ Back to top