I
Whether, in actual
ivith, or be propitious to. usage,
«niritual dcatli (see Kedeemer) ; as a -caTaXXaT'i, se t ." ' at one,' or rccoru^iUng, God and man and hrin "incr to an end the alienation between them ; ^X.''^ propitiation, breaking, d?-" ^Ue barner thlclT sin^int^rposes between 5od and man, and
enabUng God to enter ag^OT Attached espea him. ' Prop tiation is in the 0 1 attatuea esp«V^ X to the lin-ofiering, and to the faorifice of the bl Tod (or life) ; and Christ, by the giving up ot ilis I^nlesi lifeTamuls the power of sin to separate between God and the believer, by a sacriface an- alogous to those offered by the J7;'; {^ P"tTONE infinitely more efficacious (see, further, ATONE MRNT Mediation, Reconciuation). "n^'lt remains oily ,to notice brieflv the different view of kappcr which is developed by K tschl, ^.'i-htfcHlaunq u. Versdhnung\ u. 1O-8O (on i«tir f84-210. Kapper, Ritschl argues (p. ffi),''is attributed to a« °^'''°^?' }Xlo gveness (imv-lying the presence of sm) only^ to the sin- anA guilt-otienng: it is thus *_ tai^se
plied in the passages quoted), ""r is it ever re- ■— '^^s^^^SJrtoi^'^.^'^^lai^
:i.LiiS'^:^n^-atfwlu:r-^i^
&"■ 415. 19. =0 1710 18»- »»• » ; cf. I- 8" 18»). In pref- ^rente therefore to having recourse to an expla. nation both artificial in itselt anjl also w^ b «.
'5i^.-i-^^^-ixs^«
•ZZ-m'-%T neutralizing, the offerer s unworthi- P^°,^^ j!°" .i „r-,hnl,le-. ' orotection,' as said above
^rZ a'^at^oSe^;;^: it is thus a.f^^MFotecUon^ nioreu^^^^
tpneralizption to suppose that its purpose is the ^^.''^.f^^^Te ^ "condary and indirect conse.iuence generalizauon 1^" f i; nnnclusion is conhrmed (§4), may be a seconua j ,irimarv and im-
3 suppose Luat •>» f"'f ,
?;mov"»rof 3in ; and this conclusion is conhrmed bv the fact that there are many cases of purely X'^a/uLcleanness.for which, nevertheless^^n. offering involving it is prescribed. In f act, AMWer hS essentially (p. 203) no relaUon « «» ; '^ « 'coverine' of persons, spoken of in the priesuy la'sdoe! not 'mean the -vering of ^-r ^^It hut their protection, in order, viz., that— in accoru.
f^^r. ^ U 6»)-tS -ay be able to appear bffore God without risk of their lives ; the neces- sftv of such • protection' depends however not ujon man's sinfulness, but upon bis cr^^^fel^
r.^t^}:^;ie!^'s^\^o^'^v^^
ff ^I'^r; beTsecrndary ^and Indirect conse,™ Tkappt, but it is not at all tbe l--aig and im-
itsuinu» u^ I ^_j same connexions, § l-i<-),
material, as well as moral, dehlemenU.
L,„„,„^.,_The two ve^ Ml discussions tha^
from i-K, is. r, PP^/-^ .W'f p7°ot2SS ; SchulU. OT Theo. .. SehmoUer. ii., 1»91. ^^'if- Ke fhTnlW (19001 285-91, 301-4, S97-400, and ^'"^•/'^':^,,°{,b"'cl^"..^' 335f. : Smeid, AT 809-13; D.llm.on Lv <'%• ^;.^Vf 'o^o .T b Davidson, •" Atone" Hel.-oesch. 321 ; Nowack, ^jfL^-^M^' fso" p92fl. SchulU'l in Extra-ritual.Uterature, ;5^?*- f "f„p„^'iSates to that ol view of the ntual s"'^^. »' ^'^g^^ ffi an ethical motive •« BiUchl, though he /e^as the .dea that . ,„„,,,„,e •
offerin") its occasion. n- i""""\ "r"'^,^^^ I «''«'=*''• '''°"?- ■? 'h'jnnidrendc^^^^^ Ritscht's view, kipper ought not to be translated j „ever involveS m jt : hej^ould^endcr^the^w^ _^^^^^
•make propitiation' (or 'atonement ^ at all
accordin-'lv, he condemns (p. 1991.) tue renuer
?Sr 'sUhnen' as introducing 'oujy. confusion
which was not really its equivalent.
This theory is controverted at length by l»th Riehm (esp. pp. 37 f., 46-8, 51 f , 0--9 -2-8^ 83-6.
one .&aing in some parts upon a combination "relenents which are not comb ned together in the OT and in others emphasizing features and principles which do not really, in the e!^;;^a .10° - a whole, possess the prominence and si-niUcancc wlch are attached to them. The crucial quesUon undoubtedly is. What does the ^"Z;/"";" ' -^Y^fi, " R tsclil's view that, as it is predicated of the
burnt Ld leace-offering, in which there is no
auction o s\n. it must cover man's creaturehness
^Xc cannot 'subsist in God's Pre?ence witjjou
«nch 'protection,' introduces an idea which is
nowherrbrtught into connexion wiU. sacnfu=e^
Tn annroach God (with sacrifice) is by no means
WentE with 'seeing' Him (in the sense im-
iever involvea in it : ^^J^" -J^^a conrequenily (ph.vs,..ally Itreihen) : man is "y """''^''^'ifr. „:" |, unto God : the priest, by Ld morally) <?°«f ^^^.^ ^™ uovfr Se creaturely unworthf- the 'covering nte, 'l™'^^.^ "^ ° = requires it, over his
„es» of the offerer -and also ^f the case ^^^ ^^.^^^ .^_
r^t^erl^a-nJSrg- l™e;;t"5yahl,nl- him to draw near tS to Wgh and holy God without danger. ^ ^ ^^^^^^
PROSELYTE (^po,ri5\irro5, from yo<,ipx^<^e<it. : liU
•'7^el't>^:o'o|3"i^'^ife-.gdin^sach^
,,.„x*, «« 'i^;' JTIo«^"hough more often in such phrases as ,,.r,x»f« .. -^i " 1- .^ fc participles are used, viz.
thv Kates' in Ex io'", ui o • '^' ■ j, pj, g ^
PROSELYTE
PROSELYTE
133
one who takes up his residence in a foreign land, and 80 puts liimself under the protection of a foreign i)eoi)le, as a client ; i>articularly a forei^er thus residing in Palestine.* The classical equivalent is iirijXiii or iTrr)\im]i (adccnn) ; but the technical name of such a foreign resident was fiiroiKoj (inroln), to which LXX irdpotKos [ijl4toikos occurs Jer 20» only] corresponds. In NT (Mt 23", Ac 2"> 6» 13*^) JT^ocnJXwos is coninionly understood to mean a foreign convert to the Jiwisli religion, apro.ii'li/te in our sense of the word. t It. seems to havelost all con- nexion with residence in Palestine, for the prose- lytes referred to in Ac 2'" 13" live in foreign lands.