propitia
PROPITIATION
Word Study
by Ray Shelton
There are two Greek words in Greek New Testament (GNT) that are translated in our English King James Version (KJV) as “propitiation”; they are “hilasterion” and “hilasmos” The noun “hilasteron” occurs 2 times in the GNT and is translated in the KJV once as “propitiation” (Rom. 3:25) and once as “mercy-seat” (Heb. 9:5), where it refers to the cover or lid on top of the ark of the covenant. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, called the Septuagint (LXX), this Greek word translates the Hebrew word “kapporeth” 20 times (Exodus 25: 17, 18, 19, 20 [twice], 21, 22; 31:7; 35:12; 37:6, 8 [twice]; Lev. 16:2 [twice], 13, 14 [twice], 15 [twice]; Num. 7:89). The Hebrew word refers to the covering or lid of the ark of the covenant in these passages.
The King James Version of the Old Testament always translates the Hebrew word as “mercy-seat” (28 times). Some have suggested that in Rom. 3:25, where Paul tells us that God set forth Jesus Christ “a propitiation [hilasterion] through faith in his blood”, “hilasterion” should be also translated “mercy-seat” meaning that Christ is our mercy-seat. But in the Septuagint “hilasterion” is used for other places than the cover of the ark of the covenant, such as the ledge on Ezekiel’s altar (Ezk. 43:14, 17, 20) and a rather obscure reference to “the top of pillars” or “lintel of the door” in Amos 9:1. In the Ezekiel passages “hilasterion” translate the Hebrew word “azarah“, meaning a “ledge,” “border,” or in the KJV “settle.” In Symmachus’ Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament “hilasterion” is used of Noah’s Ark in Genesis 6:15, 16. It is clear that “hilasterion” in Rom. 3:25 does not necessarily refer to the cover of the ark of the covenant, the mercy-seat, but has the general meaning of “a place of propitiation.” Thus this Greek noun “hilasterion” should be translated “propitiation” as in the English KJV in Rom. 3:25: “whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood.” That is, Jesus Christ is the place of propitiation for those who have faith in his death.
The other Greek noun that is translated in the English KJV as “propitiation” is “hilasmos” and it also occurs twice in the Greek New Testament. Both occurrences are in the First Epistle of John: “he is the propitiation for our sins” (I John 2:2) and God “sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins” (I John 4:10). This Greek noun “hilasmos” occurs 10 times in the Septuagint and 6 times it translates four different Hebrew words:
1. “kippurim” [atonement] (Lev. 25:9; Num. 5:8);
2. “selichah” [forgiveness] (Psa. 130:4; Dan. 9:9);
3. “ashmah” [by the sin of] (Amos 8:14);
4. “chattah” [sin offering] (Ezk. 44:27).
The other four occurrences (I Chron. 28:20; Si. 18:20; 35:3; II Mac. 3:33) do not translate Hebrew words.
These two Greek nouns belong to the “hilaskomai” word group which contains the verb “hilaskomai” [to propitiate] and the adjective “hileos” [propitious], as well as the nouns “hilasteron” and “hilasmos“.
The Greek verb “hilaskomai” occurs twice in the Greek New Testament and is translated in the English King James Version of the New Testament in the prayer of the publican “O God, be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13), and in the statement in the book of Hebrews in the New Testament that Jesus was a High Priest “to make reconciliation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17).
The Greek adjective “hileos” also occurs twice in the Greek New Testament and is translated in the English KJV by the idiomatic phrase “Be it far from thee” in Matt. 16:22 and in a quotation from Jer. 31:34 in Heb. 8:12 “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness.”
There are therefore only 8 occurrences of these four words of the “hilaskomai” word group. This is not a very large number of occurrences of this word group in the Greek New Testament and only four of the eight refer directly to the death of Jesus Christ as a propitiation (Heb. 2:17; I John 2:2; 4:10; Rom. 3:25).
Some modern biblical scholars have objected to the word “propitiation” to translate the Greek word “hilasterion” and have suggested that it should be translated “an expiation.” These scholars apparently do not care for “propitiation” because of its suggestion of appeasement. This is the meaning given to the noun “hilasmos” and the verb “hilaskomai” in classical and Hellenistic Greek. In the pagan writers, when applied to the gods, the word-group means the appeasing the gods, or of placating their anger by bribes and appropriate offerings. Clearly the Biblical writers have nothing to do with these pagan conceptions nor with the pagan view of God as “capricious and vindictive deity, inflicting arbitrary punishments on offending worshippers, who must then bribe him back to a good mood by the appropriate offerings.” [1]
The Biblical concept of the wrath of God should not be so understood. The Wrath of God in the Old and New Testaments is the stern and settled personal reaction of God’s love against sin in man. God’s wrath must be understood in terms of God’s love. Love is that decision of the person loving to act for the good of the person loved. Love is not just an emotion, an easy-going, good-natured sentimentalism or good feeling of attraction or fondness for someone. It is the decision of the will to do good to another person. But since the will involves the emotions as well as the intellect, that is, the total person, love is a strong and intensive concern for the well being of the person loved. And it is because of this concern that God’s love may be pictured as a purifying fire, blazing out in fiery wrath against everything evil that hinders the loved one from being the best (Psa. 119:74; Prov. 3:11-12; Jer. 44:4; Heb. 1:13; Rev. 3:19). Because of this intense love which is jealous for the good of the loved one, God hates everything that is evil in man (Psa. 5:5; 11:5; Prov. 6:16-19; Jer. 44:4; Heb. 1:13; Zech. 8:16, 17). Hence the wrath of God is not opposed to His love. But rather it is the reverse side of His love. God’s wrath is the direct personal opposition of His love to the sin would destroy man whom He loves.
The wrath of God is directed against sin in any form (Jer. 21:12; Ezek. 8:17-18; 22:29,31; Rom. 1:18). But it is particularly directed against the sin of Idolatry. (Deut. 6:14-15; 4:25-26; 29:25-28; Joshua 23:15-16; Isa. 66:15-17; Jer. 11:11-13; 19:3-4; 44:2-6; Lam. 3:42-43; Ex. 32:10, 35; Num. 25:3; Judges 2:11-15; II Kings 17:9-12; 15-18.) The wrath of God is directed particularly against the sin of idolatry because it is the basic sin. But more fundamentally it is directed against this sin because of the effect that a false god has upon the one who chooses it as his god. A false god puts its worshippers into bondage by reducing and ultimately destroying their freedom of choice. It reduces his freedom of choice by limiting his options as well as his reasons for his choice. Some false gods totally eliminate some areas of life from its followers consideration. Thus a false god circumscribes and restricts the freedom of choice of the person who chooses it as his god; it acts as a frustrating limitation, a ball and chain upon the exercise of the freedom of its worshipper. But a false god also destroys the freedom of its worshipper by denying his freedom. Since a false god has limited or no freedom (no power of choice or self-determination), such a god implicitly and/or explicitly denies the reality of its follower’s freedom of choice. Thus having used his freedom to give this god his ultimate allegiance, the worshipper finds his freedom denied to the point of extinction and himself bound in a miserable slavery. As long as the false god remains his ultimate criterion of decision, he will not have the grounds for rejecting that god, since that god has not allowed him to have freedom of choice to do so. His power of choice having been effectively taken away from him; he is unable to reject the false god and free himself from its bondage. This is the bondage of sin (John 8:34; Prov. 5:22). Man becomes a slave of sin when he gives his ultimate allegiance and devotion to a false god. In fact, the false god is sin personified as a slavemaster (Rom. 6:16).
The true God, on the other hand, preserves and fulfills the freedom of the one who chooses and worships Him. Since the true God is a living God (Jer. 10:5-15; I Thess. 1:9), that is, a being that has the power of self-determination, with unlimited freedom, He can preserve His worshipper’s freedom. When this Being who has such freedom is made the ultimate criterion of one’s decisions, one’s freedom of choice may be exercised without restriction or frustrating limitation. His freedom is not denied or taken away from him. But more importantly, the true God not only preserves the freedom of the one who chooses and worships Him but also fulfills the freedom of the one who commits and devotes himself to Him. This He does by loving him; that is, by acting toward him for his highest good. Now man’s highest good is the true God; He alone can preserve the freedom of the one who chooses Him. For when a man chooses the true God as his god, he has found his highest good and obtained true happiness (Prov. 16:20; Psa. 40:4; 84:12; 144:15; Jer. 17:7, etc.). Since idolatry not only destroys man’s freedom but is an obstacle to God’s love which would fulfill man’s freedom, the wrath of God is directed against this particular sin.
Now wrath is not only way that God in His love deals with man’s sin. God desires to act toward man in mercy and grace (Psa. 103:9-12; Micah 7:18-19). In mercy He desires to turn away His wrath and forgive man’s sin (Psa. 85:2-3). And in grace He desires to remove the sin which causes His wrath. Thus God deals with man’s sin in two ways: in His wrath He opposes the sin, and in His grace He removes it. The grace of God is the love of God in action to bring man salvation (Titus 2:11; Eph. 2:4-9). In this second way God fulfills man’s freedom; He removes the idolatry which would destroy man’s freedom. And He does this by removing the cause of sin — death — through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus God sets man free from the bondage of sin, the slavery to a false god, and brings him into the freedom of righteousness, the righteousness of faith. Faith in the true God is righteousness because it relates a man rightly to Him (Rom. 4:3-5). In this right relationship to the true God, man’s freedom is fulfilled and man is truly free. “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.” (John 8:36)
Thus the wrath of God is not opposed to His love. But rather it is one of the two ways in which God in His love deals with man’s sin. God’s wrath as well as His grace is an expression of His love. There is no eternal principle of divine retribution (justice) in God which causes His wrath. Since God is love, the wrath of God must be understood in terms of His love as the direct personal opposition of His love to sin that would destroy the one whom He loves. Wrath is the reaction of His love to sin. The cause of God’s wrath is not in God; it is external to God and in the sin of man. And as long as man remains in sin, so long does the wrath of God remain upon him (John 3:36).
The activity of the wrath of God is not an impersonal law of retribution or the inevitable moral effect of sin, as advocated by C. H. Dodd. [2] The wrath of God is God’s personal reaction to man’s sin. This is seen in the Old Testament writers’ use of strong personal terms when speaking of the wrath of God.
“60:1 O God, Thou has rejected us. Thou hast broken us; Thou has been angry; … 60:2 Thou hast made the land quake;
60:3 Thou hast made Thy people experience hardship; … Thou hast given us wine to drink that make us stagger.” (Psa. 60:1-3)
“30:27 Behold, the name of the Lord comes from a remote place; Burning is His anger, and dense is His smoke; His lips are filled with indignation, and His tongue is like a consuming fire; 30:28 And His breath is like an overflowing torrent, Which reaches to the neck, To shake the nations back and forth in a sieve, And to put in the jaws of the peoples the bridle which leads to ruin …
30:30 And the Lord will cause His voice of authority to be heard. And the descending of His arm to be seen, And in the flame of a consuming fire, In a cloudburst, downpour, and hailstones, 30:31 For at the voice of the Lord Assyria will be terrified, When He strikes with the rod.” (Isa. 30:27-28, 30-31)
“The anger of the Lord will not turn back Until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart;…” (Jer. 23:20)
“7:8 Now I will shortly pour out My wrath on you, and send My anger against you, judge you according to your ways, and bring on you all your abominations. 7:9 And My eye will show no pity, nor will I spare. I will repay you according to your ways,
while your abominations are in your midst; then you will know that I, the Lord, do the smiting.” (Ezek. 7:8-9).
The psalmist and prophets could hardly have expressed more strongly the personal aspect of God’s wrath. The wrath of God in these passages is definitely not an impersonal, inexorable law of moral retribution. God personally wills His deeds of wrath against man’s sin. And because God is so personally active in His deeds of wrath, He can exercise His mercy, allowing His wrath to be turned away.
“103:9 He will not always chide, nor will He keep His anger forever. 103:10 He does not deal with us according to our sin,
nor requite us according to our iniquities. 103:11 For as the heavens are high above the earth, so great is His steadfast love toward those who fear Him; 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.”
(Psa. 103:9-12)
“85:2 Thou didst forgive the iniquity of Thy people; Thou didst cover all their sin. 85:3 Thou didst withdraw all Thy fury; Thou didst turn away from Thy burning anger.” (Psa. 85:2-3)
“7:18 Who is a God like Thee, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His inhertance? He does not retain His anger forever, Because He delights in lovingkindness. 7:19 He will again have compassion on us;
He will tread our iniquities underfoot. Yes, Thou wilt cast all our sins into the depth of the sea.”
(Micah 7:18-19; See also Exodus 34:6-7; Numbers 14:18; Neh. 9:17; Psa. 30:5; 86:15; 145:8; Isa. 57:16; Lam. 3:22-23;
Joel 2:12-13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:2-3.)
That God will have mercy, turning away His wrath, is not contradicted by the statements that “the anger of the Lord will not turn back” (Jer. 23:10), for this does not mean that He is implacable, but only that He is not diverted from His purposes by puny man, who would placate Him and bribe Him into a good mood. “The anger of the Lord will not be turned back until He has performed and carried out the purpose of His heart…” (Jer. 23:20). This statement is just a denial of the pagan idea that God will accept a bribe to appease His anger.
In the Bible propitiation must be understood as averting or turning away God’s wrath. The death of Jesus is a propitiation because it is the means that God has appointed for turning away His wrath from man who believes. God put forth Jesus Christ as a propitiation through faith in His blood, that is, His death (Rom. 3:25). While God in His love could have mercy on man and turn away His wrath from man (Psa. 78:38: Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:19-20), He has appointed means whereby His wrath will be turned away. In the Old Testament God’s appointed means for turning away His wrath were the sacrifices and offerings. When these sacrifices were offered in true repentance and faith, they were an atonement or propitiation. But these sacrifices could never take away sin (Heb. 10:4, 11); that is, they could not make alive (Gal. 3:21). On the contrary, there is in those sacrifices a continual remembrance of sin year by year (Heb. 10:3).
That is, the worshippers, not having been cleansed of their sins, still have a consciousness of sin (Heb. 10:2). Therefore, those that draw near could never be made perfect by those sacrifices (Heb. 10:1). But Christ has put away sin once for all by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26; 10:12), and has made perfect them that are being sanctified or set apart to God (Heb. 10:14). Now there is no more remembrance of sins (Heb. 10:17), since those drawing near having been cleansed from their sins have no more consciousness of sins (Heb. 10:22). It was to accomplish our cleansing from sin that Christ “gave Himself for our sins” (Gal. 1:4) and “died for our sins” (I Cor. 15:3). God has acted in Jesus Christ to redeem us from the slavery of sin and having redeemed from sin, the cause of the wrath of God has been removed. No sin, no wrath. God has set forth Jesus Christ as a propitiation, that is, the means of turn away His wrath, through faith in his death (Rom. 3:25). His death is the perfect sacrifice and propitiation because it is a redemption from sin. It takes away sin and sets the one, who receives Christ’s death by faith, free from the slavery of sin. And taking away sin, God turns away His wrath from the one who has received Christ’s death for his sins by faith.
Thus propitiation in the New Testament must be understood as turning away wrath, not as expiation, that is, making amends for a wrong or nullifying the effects of sin. To understand propitiation as expiation is misunderstand the meaning of the “hilaskomai” word group that translates into Greek the Hebrew words with kpr root in the Old Testament.
In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), there is another Greek verb “exilaskomai” that does not occur in the Greek New Testament, but must be consider a member of the “hilaskomai” word group, because of its close kinship in meaning with “hilaskomai“. This verb occurs 105 times in the LXX where it translates the Hebrew word “kapar” 83 times and other Hebrew roots a total of eleven times (There are 11 occurrences where “exilaskomai” does not translate a Hebrew word). The Hebrew word “kapar” is translated 70 times in the KJV “to make atonement”. The word “atonement” is a Middle English word which originally meant “to make at one” (“at-one-ment”), hence to reconcile persons. Thus in Rom. 5:11 the English KJV translates as “atonement” the Greek word “katallage,” which is elsewhere translated “reconciliation” (II Cor. 5:18, 19). The translators of the English KJV apparently understood the word “atonement” to mean the reconciliation of God and man through the death of Jesus Christ, that is, the “satisfaction or reparation made for a wrong or injury.” [3] But the meaning of word “atonement” has changed in modern English to the “amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation; recompense” [4] and the verb “to atone” to mean “to make amends, as for a sin or fault.” [5]
This change reflects the interpretation that C. H. Dodd gave to the “hilaskomai” word group in the LXX and the Greek New Testament. He examines the use of the “hilaskomai” word group in the Septuagint and he concludes that these words do not mean “propitiation” at all. He writes:
“To sum up: the general usage of the hilaskomai class to render kipper and its derivatives corresponds with the conclusion we have drawn from their use to render other Hebrew words, and from the synonyms used elsewhere to render the same Hebrew words, viz. 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 where guilt or defilement is removed, and accordingly rendered it by hilaskesthi in this sense.” [6]
According to Dodd, the Septuagint translators developed a new meaning for the old word group and the New Testament writers took up this new meaning.
Leon Morris re-examined Dodd’s work and concludes that his method of argument is fallacious. [7] Morris says,
“If we are to discover the meaning which the Septuagint translators saw in hilaskomai, the way to do it is to look carefully at the meaning required in the contexts in which the word is found, not to drag in the meanings of words used when hilaskomai is held to be inappropriate. The interesting fact which emerges from the examination is that quite often in the contexts in which hilaskomain is used there is a reference to the divine anger.” [8]
The Greek word “hilaskomai” occurs 11 times in the Septuagint translating three Hebrew words: “salah” (six times [II kings 5:18, 18; 24:4; II Chron. 6:30; Dan. 9:19]), “kappar” (three times [Psa. 65:3; 78:38; 79:9]), “naham” (once [Ex. 32:14]), while there is no Hebrew word corresponding to “hilaskomai” in Esther 4:17. In his book, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, after examination of every occurrence of the verb “hilaskomai” in the Septuagint, Morris concludes:
“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 the 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 face of all this it is manifestly impossible to maintain that the verb has been emptied of its force.” [9]
And after examining all the words in the “hilaskomai” word group in the Septuagint, Morris says,
“we accept the verdict of such scholars as Westcott and Dodd in their demonstration 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 LXX use of hilaskomai, etc. The usage with God as the subject of the verb, the paucity of examples of its use with Him as the object, the study of the Hebrew words translated by hilaskomai and it cognates all alike draw us to this conclusion…. 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, it is the present writer’s conviction that, in stating this great truth, most who have treated it have tended 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 hilaskomai group without conveying to the 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 hilaskomai 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 the word group is used.” [10]
It is also clear from this study by Leon Morris that propitiation does not mean a satisfaction of the justice of God for the transgressions of the law. The translators of the English KJV only twice translate the Hebrew word “kopher” as “satisfaction” (Num. 35:31, 32), which is elsewhere translated
“ransom” (8 times: Ex. 30:12; Job 33:24; 36:18; Psa. 49:7; Prov. 6:35; 13:8; 21:18; Isa. 43:3),
“bribe” (2 times: I Sam. 12:3; Amos 5:12),
“sum of money” (once: Ex. 21:30),
“camphire” (2 times: Song of Sol. 1:14; 4:13),
“pitch” (once: Gen. 6:14),
“village” (once: I Sam. 6:18).
This Hebrew word “kopher” is translated in the Septuagint
by the Greek noun “lutron” [ransom] 6 times
(Ex. 21:30; 30:12; Num. 35:31, 32; Prov. 6:35; 13:8),
by “doron” [gift] once (Job 36:18),
by “exilasma” [bribe] twice (I Sam. 12:3; Psa. 49:7),
by “allagma” [price] twice (Isa. 43:3; Amos 5:12),
by “kuproi” [camphire] twice (Song of Sol. 1:14; 4:13),
by “komes” [village] once (I Sam. 6:18),
by “perikatharma” [off-scouring] once (Prov. 21:18),
and mistranslated once (Job 33:24).
ENDNOTES
[1] Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956), p. 129.
[2] C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans
(London: Fontana Books, 1960), pp. 49-50.
[3] C. L. Barnhart, ed., The American College Dictionary
(New York: Random House, 1962), p. 78.
[4] William Morris, ed., The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., 1969), p. 84.
[6] C. H. Dodd, The Bible of the Greeks
(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1964), p. 93.
This quotation is from Chapter V which was first published in
Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. XXXII, No. 128.
[7] Leon Morris, The Atonement: Its meaning and significance
(Leicester, England and Downers Grove, Illinois, USA, Inter-varsity Press, 1983), pp. 158-160.
[9] Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, pp. 139-140.