Skip to main content

A Note on Romans 3.25's Hilastērion

 In the English Standard Version translation of Romans 3.25, we read that 'God put [Jesus Christ] forward as a propitiation [hilastērion] by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.'  Discussion of the meaning of hilastērion in this verse weighs three options (not mutually exclusive):

1. 'Mercy seat,' that is, the place of the sacrifice of atonement in the holy of holies of the Temple.

2. 'Expiate,' meaning the removal of sin and guilt, such as with a sacrifice.

3. 'Propitiate,' meaning the removal of sin and guilt and appeasement of wrath/anger.

'Propitiation' includes the meaning of 'expiation' but adds the notion that anger towards the sinner must also be removed.  Discussion of this matter typically looks at the Old Testament background, such as the discussion of the Day of Atonement sacrifice and the mercy seat in Leviticus 17.  It also typically looks at the meaning of the Greek word hilastērion.  My note introduces a passage from Tacitus, written in Latin, for the discussion and has to do with what an average Roman reading Paul's letter might have understood.

When the Roman commander, Germanicus, was threatened with his life while putting down a mutiny among his troops, he sent his family away to safety and then said to the angry soldiers:

My wife and children whom, were it a question of your glory, I would willingly expose to destruction, I now remove to a distance from your fury, so that whatever wickedness is thereby threatened, may be expiated[1] by my blood only, and that you may not be made more guilty by the slaughter of a great-grandson of Augustus, and the murder of a daughter-in-law of Tiberius’ (Tacitus, Annals 1.42).[2]

Thus, the cultural context in which Paul writes certainly entertained the notion of providing a blood sacrifice to appease the wrath of someone.  

Readers in the Roman church who were recent, Gentile converts would not have needed to understand the Jewish celebration of the Day of Atonement or the mercy seat in the temple.  The added notion of appeasement of wrath is also understandable in the Roman notion of a blood sacrifice. 

'Expiation' is certainly a part of Paul's meaning--this is a sacrifice, after all.  Yet 'propitiation' is a more complete notion.  The 'wrath of God' (Romans 1.18) is against the sin of the human race is the problem throughout Romans 1.18-3.20.  'All have sinned and come short of the glory of God' (Romans 3.23).  A sacrifice that removed sin, guilt, and God's wrath was required, and only Jesus Christ could do so.

That the Jewish practice on the Day of Atonement provides deeper meaning for this passage is something Jews and older Christians could explain in the church in Rome to new, Gentile converts.  The 'mercy seat' understanding of this verse makes good sense for those acquainted with the Old Testament.  Psalm 78 also adds depth to our understanding of Romans 3.25 and 26.  Psalm 78.38 (ESV) reads:

Yet he, being compassionate,
atoned for their iniquity
and did not destroy them;
he restrained his anger often
and did not stir up all his wrath.

The 'mercy seat', Day of Atonement, and a text like Psalm 78 would provide the new, Gentile convert a deeper theological understanding of Paul's words, but he or she would certainly have understood the notion of a propitiatory sacrifice, a blood sacrifice to assuage God's wrath.

[1] The Vulgate translates Romans 3.25’s hilastērion with propitionem, propitiation.  The Latin in the Tacitus quote is a verb, pio, which means ‘to seek to appease, appease, propitiate’.  Thus, the notion of sacrificing one’s own blood to appease an angry mob is understandable to the culture.  ‘Expiate’ in this translation is not the best word choice.

[2] Cornelius Tacitus, Complete Works of Tacitus, trans. Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (New York: Random House, rep. 1942).  In Annals 1.49, Tacitus says that the angry soldiers wanted to march against the enemy ‘as an atonement [piaculum, the noun associated with the verb, pio] for their frenzy.’  The word is associated with appeasement of their own anger.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘For freedom Christ has set us free’: The Gospel of Paul versus the Custodial Oversight of the Law and Human Philosophies

  Introduction The culmination of Paul’s argument in Galatians, and particularly from 3.1-4.31, is: ‘ For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery’ (Galatians 5.1). This essay seeks to understand Paul’s opposition to a continuing custodial role for the Law and a use of human philosophies to deal with sinful passions and desires.   His arguments against these are found in Galatians and Colossians.   By focussing on the problem of the Law and of philosophy, we can better understand Paul’s theology.   He believed that the Gospel was the only way to deal with sin not simply in terms of our actions but more basically in terms of our sinful desires and passions of the flesh. The task ahead is to understand several large-scale matters in Paul’s theology, those having to do with a right understanding of the human plight and a right understanding of God’s solution.   So much Protestant theology has articulated...
Post a Comment
Read more

Alasdair MacIntyre and Tradition Enquiry

Alasdair MacIntyre's subject is philosophical ethics, and he is best known for his critique of ethics understood as the application of general, universal principles.  He has reintroduced the importance of virtue ethics, along with the role of narrative and community in defining the virtues.  His focus on these things—narrative, community, virtue—combine to form an approach to enquiry which he calls ‘tradition enquiry.’ [1] MacIntyre characterises ethical thinking in the West in our day as ethics that has lost an understanding of the virtues, even if virtues like ‘justice’ are often under discussion.  Greek philosophical ethics, and ethics through to the Enlightenment, focussed ethics on virtue and began with questions of character: 'Who should we be?', rather than questions of action, 'What shall we do?'  Contemporary ethics has focused on the latter question alone, with the magisterial traditions of deontological ('What rules govern our actions?') and tel...
Post a Comment
Read more

The New Virtues of a Failing Culture

  An insanity has fallen upon the West, like a witch’s spell.   We have lived with it long enough to know it, understand it, but not long enough to resist it, to undo it.   The very stewards of the truth that would remove it have left their posts.   They have succumbed to its whispers, become its servants.   It has infected the very air and crept along the ground like a mist until it is within us and all about us.   We utter its precepts like schoolchildren taught their lines. Its power lies in its claims of virtuosity, distorted goodness.   If presented as the vices that they are, they would be rejected.   These virtues are proclaimed from the pulpits and painted on banners or made into flags.   They are established in our schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries.   They are the hallucinogen making our own cultural suicide bearable, even desirable.   They are virtues, but disordered, or they are the excess or deficiency of...
Post a Comment
Read more