[1] Note also the following: Daniel, S., Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Septante, Etudes et Commentaires LXI (Paris, 1966)Google Scholar (does not devote a special section to ιλάοκοθαι words but mentions them oniy in passing and takes it for granted that they have the meaning of expiation); Lyonnet, S. and Sabourin, L., Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice, Analecta Biblica (Rome, 1970)Google Scholar (provides detailed information about the terminology of expiation in the Old Testament, the Septuagint and the New Testament, and about the sacrificial function of blood, with bibliographies); Frances Young, M., Sacrifice and the Death of Christ (London, 1975);Google ScholarDaly, R. J., The Origins of the Christian Doctrine of Sacrifice (London, 1978).Google Scholar

[2] The connexion between animal slaughter and sacrifice has been familiar since Robertson Smith's, W.Religion of the Semites (1889), pp. 216, 297. More recently: Pedersen, J., Israel I/II (1926), pp. 483–4, III/IV (1944), pp. 315, 335, 338Google Scholar–40 ‘the killing of cattle in early Israel had to present something of the character of sacrifice’; de Vaux, R., Ancient Israel (1961), pp. 436–7, Wolf, H. W., Anthropology of the Old Testament (1974), p. 61.Google Scholar

[3] Lev. 17. 7 suggests that the apotropaic function has been transferred to Yahweh from the goat demons. Cf. Noth, Leviticus ad loc. The LXX translation of Lev. 17. 11^d invites comment. MT reads ki-haddam hu' bannepeš y^ekapper. RSV translates [for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life]. The second clause is ambiguous: it may mean that the blood makes atonement because it comprises the life (NEB ‘it is the blood, that is the life, that makes expiation’), treating the beth as beth essentiae; or the beth may have causal force (BDB III. 5) and so may imply that the blood makes atonement because of the life (that has been destroyed). Cf. Dt. 24. 16 ‘each man shall be put to dath for his own sin’ (b^eḥefo rendered in LXX with a dative). The LXX translator of Lev. 17. 11^d may have been influenced by Lev. 24.18 ς άν πάγα ἄ νος και δποθάνν, άποτελοάγω υκήν άντι ψυρψς (nepheš taḥat nepheš). There the killer must replace the animal he has wrongfully or accidentally killed with a living animal; in 17. 11^d for the life he has deliberately taken he must surrender the blood. The cases are different but the Greek translation of one may have acted on the other. It is tempting to think that a substitutionary interpretation thus became possible (as in Vg) but caution is necessary in view of Lev. 26.24: ‘I will smite you sevenfold άντι τϖν μν’netSabourin, pp. 176–80.

[4] The two are closely connected: Gen. 9. 2–6.

[5] Lev. 19. 20–22 probably refers to an error, not to a breach of marriage. Cf. Noth, Leviticus ad loc.Google Scholar

[6] Cf. also Num. 31. 50, though this may refer to desacralising after an episode in the Holy War. In Num. 25. 6–13, the danger from a mixed marriage is averted by Phinehas when he murders the offending couple.

[7] Cf. Num. 8. 12, 21 for the Levites. In Num. 8. 19 the Levites (exceptionally) ’. LXX omits the plague.

[8] Cf., Lev. 10. 17 where consumption of the sin offering is required of the priests that they may ’bear the iniquity of the congregation, and make atonement before the Lord’.Google Scholar

[9] The Day of Atonement ‘was a yearly atonement for the nation as a whole (including the priests); and not only for the nation, but also for the sanctuary, in its various parts, in so far as this had been defiled during the past year by the sins of the people, in whose midst it stood. The sins thus atoned for must not, however, be supposed to be those committed ‘with a high hand’ (Num. 15. 3 cf.) i.e. defiantly and wilfully, but sins of ignorance and frailty (άγνοήμαρα, Heb. 9. 7)’, HDB I, 201. Rabbinic tradition is not contrary to this statement: ‘For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow’, Yoma 8. 9. Even more explicit is Shebuoth 1. 6: ‘For uncleanness that befalls the Temple and its hallowed things through wantonness, atonement is made by the goat whose blood is sprinkled within (the Holy of Holies) and by the Day of Atonement: for all other transgressions spoken of in the Law …the scapegoat makes atonement.’ The scape-goat is not a blood ritual and ιλάακεοθαι is not sed of it.

[10] Exod. 32. 14 in Hebrew says: ‘The Lord was sorry (wayinahem) concerning the evil£’ though LXX has ιλάοθη. Morris, p. 138 wants to read this as propitiation, but he does not observe that the effect on God, whatever it is, is obtained neither by gift nor by sacrifice, but by argument.Google Scholar

[11] και νŪν ει μέν άωīς αύτοīς τήν άμαρτίαν, äωες ει δέ μή, έξάλειψόν με έκ τηῑς βιβλου σον (Ex. 32. 32). Morris, p. 144 and Hill, p. 32 regard this as Moses's. They are misled by the commentators e.g. Noth, Exodus, p. 251,Google ScholarChilds, B. S., p. 571. Moses is already furiously angry (32. 19) and behaving with exemplary ferocity (32. 27–29). He says to God in effect: ‘Forgive them or get rid of me – but you will have no one to lead this people’. God is not deceived by this threat, but his reply in 32. 33–34 is a compromise typical of political bargaining.Google Scholar

[12] Morris, , p. 154,Google Scholar on the cultic use of ιλάσκομαι says: ‘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 sin, or with reference to an (unclean) altar, etc.’ Wrath, however, is a secondary description of some of the religious motives described above and is not helpful in presenting them to our understanding. Morris, , p. 156Google Scholar argues the ‘the concept of the wrath of God stresses the seriousness of sin’, but for the modern reader it does precisely the opposite. If it is thought that God loses his temper about an unintentional breach of rules of about the ritual impurity of an altar, he certainly does not show a serious view of sin, nor indeed if he chokes with rage over deliberate murder. The ‘wrath of God’ has indeed an important function in binlical usage but the meaning of that function can no longer be understood by using the phrase ‘wrath of God’. Pedersen, , 3–4, pp. 358–64 has material relevant to this section though his treatment differs from mine. He says that Kipper can be used about inducing a person who has been wronged to forget his grievance and allow it to be wiped from his soul; he is appeared and harmony is restored’. But this usus loquendi is not applied to God. What from a psychological point of view is an obliteration of sin from the human soul. is forgiveness from a divine point of view (pp. 361–2).Google ScholarDaly, , Origins, p. 27Google Scholar refers to the positive and negative functions of atonement: positive in making persons or objects acceptable to Yahweh, preserving them in such a state, and making them eligible to partake in the cult; negative in the apotropaic function of averting the course of evil set in motion by sin or transgression, whether knowingly or unknowingly; and see his summary on 31. Young, , Sacrifice, p. 30 divides sin-offerings into three types: (a) propitiatory offerings intended to placate the anger of an offended deity, which she regards as pagan though there are traces of this type in OT; (b) aversion – sacrifices to ward off evil powers (pagan with traces surviving in Jewish rituals); and (c) expiatory offerings, sacrifices understood as a God-given means of wiping away sin and removing pollution (Jewish).Google Scholar

[13] Cf., , Pedersen Israel I/II, p. 384.Google Scholar

[14] Morris, p. 139 admits the meaning ‘pardon’ in 4 Kgdms. 5. 18. In 4 Kgdms. 24. 4 ούκ ήωέλησενκύπιος ιλασωηναι, Morris wishes to translate ‘the Lord was unwilling to be propitiated’ (see also the odd έπι τόν ωνμόν κυπιν ήν in 24. 3(cf. 24. 20) not in MT). Perhaps the LXX translator did indeed introduce a conventional images of God's anger and his refusal to be pacified; but the writer is not derectly saying or implying anything about how God could have been propitiated.Google Scholar

[15] The remaining ρλεως usages are simple interjections of the kind ‘Far be it from me’.

[16] BDB s.v. kpr. 2. b. Morris, p. 154 is not justified in regarding έξιλάσκεσωαι as passive. Nor is Morris, p. 146 helped by drawing in Ezk. 16. 42 (from a separate oracle) to explain 16.63 since the earlier passage says that God has sated his anger and the later passage that he regards the delinquents with favour.Google Scholar

[17] on Hab., 1. 11 Hill, cf., p. 29.Google Scholar

[18] Dodd, p. 86 f. was justified in dismissing these passages from consideration, though Morris, p. 153 f. relies heavily on them. See Lyonnet-Sabourin, , pp. 141–6.Google Scholar

[19] In Ezra 10. 19 MT, priests agreed to put away their foreign wives and to make a guilt offering which is translated εξιλασός in lEs. 9. 20 and πλημμελειΑ in 2 Es. 10. 19. Nothing turns on the difference: the choice of words is a matter of preference.

[20] Prov. 16. 14: a sensible man will appease a King's anger. Sound sense, but theologically uninformative.

[21] Lam. 3. 42 complains that they have transgressed and God has not forgiven (ούγ ιλάσθŋς translating ṣlḥ) but has wrapped himself in anger. Hence Morris p. 138 prefers to translate ‘thou wast not propitiated’. He does not mention that the complainant expects God to be placated, not by gift or sacrifice, but by patience, contrition, pleading and telling God that he is merciful.

[22] See Lacoque, A., The Book of Daniel (1979), p. 192.Google Scholar

[23] Morris p. 139 wants to fmd propitiation and the averting of wrath in these passages, but it will not do. In Ps. 77 it is clear that the sinners’ repentance was not genuine, yet God was pacified for their sins and restrained his wrath. Why? because he is compassionate. Nothing is done to pacify him; he pacifies himself. He cannot be said to be propitiated.

[24] Translating way^epallel ‘he interposed’ by Éξιλάσαγο, presumably reading p11 as ‘mediate, pray’. The reference is to Num. 25. 6–13, see note 5. Cf. Hill p. 27 f.

[25] Pfeiffer, R. H., History of New Testament Times (1949), p. 447.Google Scholar

[26] 1 Mac. 2. 21 ιλεως ήμΙυ‘far be it from us’ can be dismissed.

[27] ιλάσκοθαι + acc. Ps. 64(65)3; dat. Ps. 24(25)11, 77(78)38, 78(79)9. Éζιλάσκεσθαι + acc. of the sin 2 Chr. 29. 24, Sir. 3. 3, 3. 30, 20. 28, 28. 5, 31(34)19, Dan. Th. 9. 24; in corresponding passive construction Dt. 21. 8, 1 Kgdms. 3. 14, Sir. 5. 6; + περι τησάμαρτις Ex. 32. 30, KLew. 5. 10; + ά≼ό τοάμαγοσ Num. 35. 36. Morris pp. 174–7 is special pleading.

[28] The Johannine phrase is not found in LXX. In Ezek. 44. 27 ιλασμός renders haṭṭat ‘sin offering’; so does ÉξιλΑσμός in 1 Chr. 28. 11. Ex. 30. 10 speaks of ‘the blood of the cleansing of sins τοÉξλΑσμοSir. 32(35)3 says, very characteristically, that departing from wickedness is atonement. That is all. What Aindt and Gingrich/Bauer mean s.v. by referring to Lev. 25, Ps. 129, and Num. 5 is not evident.

[29] Philo, , Flaccus 22, On Joseph 227, 239 where παράκητοιe act to propitiate (Éξε⋯με⋯ιξεω) persons in authority. See K. Grayston, ‘The meaning of PARAKLETOS’, in JSNT.Google Scholar

[30] Käsemann, Cf., Commentary on Romans, pp. 92–101; Cranfield, , Romans, 1, pp. 201–18 who allows that the passage may reflect belief in the atoning power of a martyr's death, the efficacy of the binding of Isaac, and the Servant's fate in Isa. 53. 10, but decides that ιλασγήριον is best rendered by propitiatory sacrifice.Google Scholar