2. The facts that have been quoted make it evident that the Greek terms renc'ered ' propitia- tion ' correspond to the Heb. irj and derivatives. These words hold an important place in the theo- logical terminology of tne OT ; and though they are generally rentiered in EV by ' (make) atone- ment' (or 'reconcile,' 'make reconciliation,' in Lv 630 815 igM, Ezk 45"- "■ =i° AV ; Dn 9=* AV and RV), the idea expressed by the Heb. is certainly rather that of 'propitiation' than of 'atonement' (i.e. 'at-one-ment,' setting at one, reconciliation [see Shaks. Rich. III. I. iii. 36]) ; and hence they will be properly considered under the present heading.
It is much to be rejrretted that the link connecting OT and NT, supplied by (i^*>.ac-Kflu«i, should have been neglected in EV ; and that words which clearly correspond should have been rendered ' propitiation ' in the NT, but ' atonement ' in the OT. ' Atonement ' is now an unsuitable rendering of kipper, for two reasons. (1) Since AV of 1611 was made, the word haa changed its meaning ; and whereas it formerly (see Murray) expressed the idea of reconciliation, it now suggests chiefly the idea of snaking amends or reparation. Hence in the one passage in AV of NT in which * atonement * occurs (Ro 511, for »»T«XAayr), the Revisers have done rightly in substituting for it ' reconciliation * (which, with * reconcile,' is used elsewhere. in AV itself, for compounds of ixxio-»-», Mt 6=^, Ko S'"- ">■ 11 1115, 1 Co 7", 2 Co S"s- 18- 19, Col 120- 21, Eph 216). But (2) even in its older sense of * reconciliation,' it does not projierly repre- sent kipper ; for kipper does not mean to ' reconcile,' nor i» it ever represented in LXX by compounds of aUartf-*.
3. The root-meaning of 155 is probably to cover over ; for the Arab, knfara, though not very common, has this meaning in various applica- tions (Lane, Arab. Lex. p. 2620).
In Syr. ktphar, and esp. the Pael kappar, means to wipe or ivipe away, as Pr 302*> to wipe the mouth, to wipe away tears, the stain of sin, etc, hence fig. to disperse, destroy (delerc), a» darkness Ephr. i. 9, a race or nation, etc. (P. Smith, Thes. i>yr, col.1797-0); and W. R. Smith(07'yCl4SSf., more briefl;)-, 2 3S0, 3$1) adopts this as the primary meaning of the Heb. hpper, — explaining Gn 32'2' (see § 5) as meaning properly to ' wipe clean the face,* blackened by displeasure, as the Arabs say ' whiten the face.' The Heb. kipper, however, as a theological tenii, in any case implies a metaphor, — and it does not greatly si^'uify, in explaining it, whether we start from the idea of covering over or from that of vnpin<t out : in either case, the idea which the uataphor is intended to convey is that of rendering null and inoperative. There are analogies in the OT for each explanation ; sin is spoken of, viz. as covered (np5, — an ordinary, untechnica] word for * cover '), Ps 321 (* covered in respect of sin '), 653, Neh 3^" (Heb. 4') [borrowed from Jer IS^, vfith kipper (§ 9) changed to kitfali]; and as wiped (or blotted) out (.in?). Is 43* 41-.!, Jer 182<( = Nch33?14»l), Ps 611- 9i' 1091''. (It is dirticult not to think that the Arab, and Syr. senses ot the root spring ultimately from a common origin, — e.g. from the idea of wipi7iq over : in ' both languages, it is remarkable that the word acquires the further derived idea of disown, deny, be a di4 believer; hence 'Kafir,' properly an i?ijiilcl).— The .4rab. U conj. (ka.^ara) occi»'« often in the Koran of God's e^acing, or
PKOPITIATIOX
PROPITIATION
129
(or^ivinj, ein ; and lafarat (Kor. 6<9 9>- «!) means the expia- t'"n of a crime, broken vow, etc. (Lane, 2(120, 2U:i2 ; Lai,':inle, iiit'ttiii'i d^r yotn. 23111.); but these wunla luay be borrowed from Judaism (liiriichield, BeUrage I. ErkUir. d. J^or. p. 00). The Ass> r. kuppuru, also a ritual term (' siibnen '), seeraa to mean i)roperly to wipe o.'f : 9e« Uaupt. JliL^ 1900, pp. 61, 80, and e^p. Zinunem, Beitrdge zur KtrnTttnit der Bab. Belig. pp. 92, 123, elo.
4. The Heb. kipper is, however, never used In a purely literal sense (like n;?), but always * in a ligurative or moral application, viz. with the col- lateral idea — which in course of time became the preponderant if not the exclusive idea— of either conciliating an otiended person, or screening an otience or an oHender.
C(. Oehler, OT Theol. § 127 : 'Kipper, and the cognate sub- stantives, represent the propitiation (Stihne) as a coverinj ; the puilt is covered, or, as it were, withdrawn from the siglit of the person propitiated, so that tlie t^'uitty person can now approach him without danger.' Riclim, in his exposition of the term, uses commonly the expression 'protecting covering' (schijtz- ende Bedeckung), — an expression which no doubt reads more into the word than it actually denotes — for, as Schmoller (p. 282 f.) observes, kipper is c</Ht€gere and «i//tegere, but not pro- tegere, being never useii, for instance, in the ordinary sense of 'protecting, — but which is still a useful and 8Uggesti\e para- phrase (cf. 'M. 2;J5 n., 279, where it is allowed that ' protection,' though not denoted directly by kipper, is neverthele.ss an indirect coiiJ<efjtience of it). Schmoller, in his exposition, starts with the idea of eorerin(f oi^er (obmere), in tlie sense of causing to disappear, making unob8e^^'ed, inoperative, etc. These explanations, though they start with the idea of ' cover- ing,' difler little in the end from that which would be reached by starting with the idea of ' wiping out ' ; but it is a question w'hether some modem writers do not press the idea of ' cover' unduly, and understand it in a too literal sense (cf. §§ 1&, 17).