What does Paul mean by “propitiation”?

Explanation:

To understand what Paul means by the term ἱλαστήριον, it is important to consider how it is used in other writings.

In the first place, we find ἱλαστηριον being used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to denote the mercy seat.⁵ In fact, in twenty-one out of its twenty-seven occurrences in the Old Testament, ἱλαστήριον refers to the covering that went over the ark, otherwise known as the mercy seat.⁶ Now, the lid of the ark, or the mercy seat, was particularly important for Jewish thinkers. That is because God commanded the Jews to celebrate an annual day of atonement where a goat was sacrificed for the sins of the people, and the blood of the goat was sprinkled on the ἱλαστήριον (mercy seat) (Leviticus 16:15). So the ἱλαστήριον has to do with the place of atonement.

At the same time, the term was also used to denote something like sacrifice for the sake of others. For example, we read in 4 Maccabees that Israel was attacked by Antiochus but eventually defeated. In 4 Maccabees 17:22 the writer explains that through the ἱλαστήριον of the pious ones, divine Providence preserved Israel. In other words, through the sacrifice of those who died fighting Antiochus, Israel was preserved.⁷

Given that Paul was Jewish, he would have understood how ἱλαστήριον was used to refer to the mercy seat, and how it was used to refer to a sacrificial death. Further, given that Paul’s audience contained both Jewish and Gentile Christians, he likely combined these meanings to denote something like sacrifice of atonement. Christ Jesus is both the sacrifice and the place of the sacrifice.⁸

Counterargument:

The problem here is that it does not seem to make sense to say that Christ Jesus is both the sacrifice and the place of the sacrifice. For the sacrifice is something brought to a place, while the place is where the sacrifice is brought. If Christ Jesus is the sacrifice, it would make more sense to say that the cross is the place of the sacrifice, and if Christ is the place of the sacrifice, it is not clear what was sacrificed. 

Response to counterargument:

The notion that we must insist on a one-to-one correspondence in terms of Christ as a sacrifice and the place of sacrifice, as it relates to the Maccabean sense of sacrifice and the mercy seat as the place of sacrifice, is overly literalistic.⁹ We do not need to press Paul for a one-to-one correspondence to understand his point. Rather, his point aligns perfectly with the fact that Christ Jesus fulfills the Old Testament sacrificial system and ushers in the new covenant. For Christ Jesus is both the place where humans are reconciled with God, that is, the perfect mediator between humanity and God. At the same time, he appeases God by offering himself in obedience to the Father. Thus, that Christ Jesus is both the sacrifice and the place of the sacrifice beautifully articulates the unique nature and role of Christ.

Explanation:

When Paul says that God put forward Christ Jesus as a ἱλαστήριον, it is important to notice that he follows this up with the prepositional phrase by his blood. The allusion to Christ’s blood is important because the Jews closely associated blood with sacrifices of atonement.¹⁰ In particular, the imagery of blood was associated with the Day of Atonement, when the sins of the people were forgiven by the sprinkling of blood on the ἱλαστήριον (mercy seat). So Paul has in mind forgiveness. At the same time, he is making clear that forgiveness comes at the cost of Christ Jesus’ blood. So by saying God puts Christ Jesus forward as a ἱλαστήριον, he is saying that Christ Jesus is the place of forgiveness, and the one who pays for our sins. In other words, Christ Jesus is an atoning sacrifice that accomplishes forgiveness through payment.

Counterargument:

That Paul includes the fact that ἱλαστήριον is accomplished through Christ Jesus’ blood suggests that Paul has in mind sacrifice in the sense of payment. For we know that the goat was sacrificed as a sort of payment for the sins of the people. Likewise, Christ Jesus’ blood was shed as a sort of sacrifice of atonement.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this counterargument is that it fails to recognize that our goal is to understand the term ἱλαστήριον. That Christ Jesus’ blood is involved in redemption no doubt alludes to the notion of sacrifice, as in Christ’s paying with his blood as the scapegoat paid with its blood. Still, the term Paul uses to denote what Christ Jesus accomplished is ἱλαστήριον, which was the same term used to refer to the place where the blood was sprinkled. What is unique about Paul’s use of the term is that he combines the notion of ἱλαστήριον with the fact that it involves Christ’s blood. Thus, he denotes that Christ Jesus is both the place and the sacrifice.

The only weakness of this view is that it assumes that Paul is saying that Christ Jesus is both the place of sacrifice and the sacrifice, through the sophisticated Jewish notion of ἱλαστήριον. Of course, that Paul uses literary creativity is not impossible, but it does imply that he thought his audience would pick up on the nuance he has in mind.

Explanation:

 When Paul writes that God put Christ Jesus forward as a ἱλαστήριον, he means he put Christ forward to appease his wrath. We can detect this because Paul has spent considerable effort in Romans 1:18–3:20 explaining that all humans are under God’s wrath for sin. That humans are under God’s wrath implies that humans need to be redeemed from God’s wrath, and Paul says in Romans 3:24 that we are redeemed through Christ Jesus. Now, if the redemptive work that Christ performs does not redeem us from God’s wrath, we would remain under God’s wrath.¹³ Thus, Paul is saying that Christ redeems us in that he puts Christ forward as a means to appease his wrath.

Counterargument:

While it is true that humans need to be redeemed from God’s wrath, and that Christ accomplishes this, it is not clear that Paul is saying Christ accomplishes this as the one put forward as a propitiation by his blood. For then it would seem that Paul is saying Christ was put forward as an object to appease the wrath of God. But Paul does not say that Christ was put forward as an object to appease God’s wrath, but that God is the one who put Christ Jesus forward.¹⁴ So maybe Paul is saying that God is the one who put Christ Jesus forward to forgive our sins, and because our sins are forgiven, we are no longer under God’s wrath.

Response to counterargument:

While it may be contradictory for God to both be appeased and be the one who does the appeasing, this explanation best fits the data. For we know that humans are under the wrath of God, and we know that Christ Jesus is the redeemer who is put forward as a ἱλαστήριον. Given the fact that ἱλαστήριον can be used to denote appeasement of wrath through a payment, it is clear that Christ Jesus is put forward by God to appease God.¹⁵

Explanation:

When Paul writes that God put Christ Jesus forward as a ἱλαστήριον, the term means propitiation,¹⁶ that is, appeasing someone’s wrath. We know that ἱλαστήριον means propitiation because this is how the term is most commonly used in ancient Greek literature and by Old Testament authors.¹⁷ Thus, Paul is saying that Christ Jesus was put forward by God to appease God’s wrath against sin.¹⁸

Counterargument:

The problem here is that the term ἱλαστήριον does not only mean propitiation. The term can also be used to refer to the mercy seat that covered the ark of the covenant, and it can be used for expiation.¹⁹ Expiation is not the same as propitiation, for expiation has to do with forgiveness, while propitiation has to do with appeasing one’s wrath. So it is simply not the case that propitiation is our only option, which means that Paul mean be saying that Christ is the mercy seat, or that God put him forth for expiation.²⁰

Response to counterargument:

While Paul may have something like expiation in the back of his mind, it is more likely that he is thinking about propitiation, given all he has said about God’s wrath in Romans 1:18–3:20.²¹ Further, it is highly unlikely that Paul would use the term ἱλαστήριον in the sense of mercy seat because the mercy seat was hidden in the temple where only the high priest could access it. On the other hand, Paul is saying that God put Christ Jesus forward publicly as a ἱλαστήριον. So it is unlikely that he has mercy seat in mind.²²

Response to response to counterargument:

That the mercy seat was hidden and that God put Christ Jesus forward as a ἱλαστήριον do not negate the notion that Paul had in mind Jesus in relation to the mercy seat. For it is fitting that Christ Jesus was put forward publicly in contrast with the secret nature of the Old Testament mercy seat, given that Christ’s sacrifice and the ushering in of the new covenant is superior to the old covenant.²³

The weakness of this view is that it overlooks the important use of the term ἱλαστηριον to refer to the mercy seat. Paul is writing to Gentile and Jewish Christians and dealing with particularly Jewish themes in this section. Thus, it comes as no surprise that he would use the particularly Jewish notion of the mercy seat, that is, the place where forgiveness is found, to denote the redemption accomplished by Christ Jesus.

Explanation:

 When Paul writes that God put Christ Jesus forward as a ἱλαστήριον, we can detect that he means mercy seat. The term is often used in the Old Testament to refer to the mercy seat, the place where reconciliation between God and humans was made possible on the Day of Atonement. ²⁴ It is on the mercy seat that the blood of the scapegoat was sprinkled for the forgiveness of the sins of the people. Now, by referring to Christ Jesus as the ἱλαστήριον, Paul is saying that Christ is the metaphorical place where reconciliation between God and humans is possible.

Counterargument:

The problem here is that there is just no sense in the notion that Christ Jesus is something like a blood-sprinkled lid that covered the ark. Christ is a person who died on the cross for the sins of humanity. The mercy seat was a lid crafted out of gold, used to cover the ark, and occasionally sprinkled with blood. Unfortunately for this view, there is just no sense in which these are similar.²⁵

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument overlooks the notion that Paul refers to Christ in a metaphorical sense. That is, Paul is saying that Christ Jesus is a metaphorical mercy seat. Using metaphor to refer to Christ is not uncommon in Scripture. For example, Christ refers to himself as a door (John 10:7), and he calls on believers to eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:53).

This view overlooks the common use of the term ἱλαστήριον for contemporaries of Paul, who used it to refer to something like propitiation, rather than the mercy seat. Further, it does not take into account that Paul says redemption is possible through Christ Jesus’ blood. That redemption is through Christ Jesus’ blood implies he is not only the place of sacrifice but also the sacrifice.