In classical Greek the verb ' propitiate ' (l\a.(rKop.ai) is common, but it is construed regularly with the accusative of the deity (or person) propitiated. This construction is never used by apostolic writers ; it is very rarely found in the LXX, even when used of a human subject (cf. Gn 32-», Zee 7", Pr W*). In the LXX it is commonly construed with vepi ('on behalf of), followed by the person on whose behalf the propitiatory act is performed. This difference of construction marks a difference be- tween pagan and biblical ideas ; for although pro- pitiating God may be indirectly involved in phrases used in the OT, it is not direct and prominent as in non-biblical writers. The restoration of God's favour and the forgiveness of the worshipper are generally the aim of the propitiatory sacrifice (cf. Lv 4-") ; but the idea of directly appeasing one who is angry with a personal resentment against the offender, which is implied when the deity is the direct object of the verb, is foreign to biblical usage. This distinction of usage corresponds with the fact that the higher biblical conception of God is more ethical and less anthropoinorphie than the concep- tion in heathen writers ; it also accords with the fact that the Hebrew term represented in the LXX by iXdcTKotiai and its derivatives early came to be used in a specialized rather than in a literal sense In its application to the acknowledged ethical rela- tions between the fiod of Israel and His people. The root meaning of this term (kipper, 155) is prob-
■262
rROPITIATION
PKOPITIATION
ably ' cover over ' ; so Arabic also ; the Syriac (and probably the Assyrian) cognate = ' wipe ' (cf. Pr 30*), or ' wipe away,' e.rf. tears or sins, and therefore 'disperse' or 'abolish.' \V. K. Smith {The OTin the JcwUh Chun-h, Edinhurj;h, 18S1, p. 438 f.) adopts the latter as the primary nieanini,' — 6.17., 'to wipe clean the face blackened by dis- pleasure' (cf. Gn 32'-'). Obviously l)oth 'cover over ' and 'wipe away ' are convenient metaphors for the common idea of rendering null and void ; tlie OT .supplies frequent examples of the use of each in regard to sin (cf. Ps 32' 85=, Is 43=' 44~, Jer 18-^ ; see also HUB iv. 128 ; P. Haupt in JBL xix. [1900] 61, 80). P.ut in OT theological ter- minology, kippiir, which holds an important place, is used always in a figurative or moral sense witli tlie collateral idea, whicli in time became the domi- nant if not the exclusive one, of conciliating an offended person or screening an offence or offender. Guilt is covered or withdrawn from the sight of the person propitiated, so that the way is clear for the guilty to approach him with confidence. G. F. Moore objects altogether to the use of etymological meanings, as a fault of method, and as fruitful of error. Plain facts of usage, which suggest no reference to ' wiping out ' or ' covering,' are the sole guide for interpreting the term (cf. EBi iv. 4220). Several points in the OT usage should be carefully noted, (a) Its subject is usually either God or the priest ; its means, when indicated, either a gift or a sacrifice, (b) Its use in the Levitical system is especially associated with the sin-otl'ering, whose characteristic potence lies in the blood of the sacri- fice, because ' the blood is the life,' and it is followed by ' it shall be forgiven him ' in reference to sin ; whether the fault is ritual or moral is not always clearly distinguished, (c) The idea of appeasing God in the heathen sense by ofl'ering Him an mduce- ment to alter His disposition towards the otterer is absent, ' nor is it ever implied that the otterer of such a sacrifice is outside God's dispensation of grace, or the object of His wrath ' (Driver, HDB iv. 131); the propitiation is Divinely appointed; the motive as far as indicated is the grace of God. (d) The idea of the ottender hiding or covering his sin is not tolerated ; he is to confess and repent of it : ' the object is never the sin, but the person (or thing) on whose behalf the ottering is made' [ib. iv. 130). (e) Propitiation was only for unintentional sins (except in four specified eases) ; for deliberate and wilful sin — sin ' with a high hand ' — propitia- tory provision was not made.
With some such connotation as here suggested the Hebrew term for 'propitiation ' passed on through the LXX from OT usage to that of the apostolic writers, possibly hardened also by the priestly and Rabbinical emphasis of their times. It became for them a naturally serviceable term in which to state and interpret into current forms of religious speech the new experience of God's act of forgiveness of sins, which they unhesitatingly con- nected directly with the sufl'ering death of Jesus Christ. But this transition was made in the light of the conviction that tlie transcendent and final character of the redemptive work of Christ raised a term connected chiefiy with legal and ritual signi- ficance into a realm of ethical and spiritual realities of which its ancient use had been merely typical and tentative. Moreover, the apostles' application of the term as interpretative of the meaning of Christ's ottering of His sinless life to do away with the power of sin to separate between God and man was marked by a certain personal freedom of usage. This freedom expresses itself in ditt'erences dis- cernible in the use of the NT term. The Pauline usage may be distinguished from that of the writer 3f the Johannine Epistles and from that ado]ited by the writer to the Hebrews. These apostolic