UMARY C 
 
 
 '* • <■ :^'^‘ •, ' »..• -iT '„ . ► L^*,'’"' 
 
 
 ■ V’.- : ■••:■ 
 
 ■ ':■ .? •; 3 :< “ ^ , 1 . . .' 
 
 ',■■■' -Si-'' ’ '" ■ "•* I .'J '...■. ; 
 
 ■ '■ -i 
 
 JUL132B? 
 
 THtOtOaCOi 8 ( — I I W IV 
 
 i 
 
 iii 
 
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 
 NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES 
 NO. IV 
 
 ST. PAUL%* CONCEPT OF 
 
 ACCORDING TO ROM. 
 
 lAASTHPION 
 
 III, 25 
 
 AN HISTORICO^EXEGETICAL INVESTIGATION 
 
 2Di0fifertation 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OH THE SACRED SCIENCES AT THE CATHOLIC 
 UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE 
 REQUIREMENTS FOB THE DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. ROMUALD ALPHONSE MOLLAUN, O.F.M., S.T.L., 
 
 .— _ . 
 
 OF THE PROVINCE OF ST, JOHN BAPTIST 
 CINCINNATI, OHIO 
 
 St. Mary'g Seminary Library* 
 Baltimore. Fi/So. 
 
 THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF, AMERICA 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 1923 
 

 I ■ :•.) 
 
 •■'r. 
 
 31421 
 
Nihil Obstat. 
 
 Imprimi Potest. 
 
 Nihil Obstat. 
 
 Imprimatur. 
 
 Eduinus J. Auweiler, 0. F. M., Ph. D., 
 
 Censor Deputatus. 
 
 Edmundus Klein, 0. F. M., 
 
 Minister Provincialis. 
 
 Henricus Schumacher, S. T. D., 
 
 Censor Deputatus. 
 
 Michael J. Curley, D. D., 
 
 Ardhiepiscopus Baltimorensis. 
 
 Ill 
 
PREFACE 
 
 In Rom. Ill, 25 St. Paul says of Jesus Christ: 01 / irpoeOero 6 ©eo? 
 tkacTTrjpLov Sea rij^ ttiVtco)? iv tm avTOV at/mri. What is the meaning 
 of IXaxjTyptov in this important Christological statement? Modern 
 exegetes have sought in vain for a satisfactory answer to this ques¬ 
 tion. As the context shows the term is intimately connected with 
 the doctrines of justification, redemption, atonement, etc., and all 
 these problems have received and are receiving constant attention. 
 Hence, a special treatise on the Pauline IXoar^pLov is both necessary 
 and opportune. With the hope, therefore, of removing the confu¬ 
 sion with which modern exegesis has surrounded the term and of 
 presenting a definite conclusion to the problem, this monograph has 
 been prepared. 
 
 To the Rev. Dr. Heinrich Schumacher, Professor of Hew Testa¬ 
 ment Exegesis at the Catholic University of America, the author 
 owes a particular indebtedness, and wishes to express to him his 
 acknowledgment for the guiding and helpful service rendered in 
 writing this monograph. He likewise desires to express sincerest 
 gratitude to the Rev. Edwin J. Auweiler, 0. F. M., Ph. D., for 
 most valuable suggestions in the presentation of the matter, and to 
 the Rev. Ermin Schneider, 0. F. M., for his careful revision of the 
 manuscript. 
 
 Romuald A. Mollaun, 0. F. M. 
 
 V 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/stpaulsconceptofOOmoll 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 INTRODUCTION . 1 
 
 PART I.—HISTORICAL 
 
 CHAPTER I. The Text . 5 
 
 CHAPTER II. History of the Interpretation' of IAA2THPI0N. 8 
 
 1. In Modern Exegesis. 8 
 
 2. In the Greek Fathers. 25 
 
 3. In the Latin Fathers... 37 
 
 4. In the Exegesis of the Middle Ages down to Modern Times.. 40 
 
 PART II.—EXEGETICAL 
 
 CHAPTER III. Historico-Literary Investigation of IAAS- 
 KES6AI AND ITS Derivatives. 
 
 1. In the Hellenic World. 45 
 
 2. In the LXX and Jewish Tradition. 55 
 
 3. In Philo. 65 
 
 4. In Post-LXX Times. 67 
 
 CHAPTER IV. Application of the Results to Rom. Ill, 25... 90 
 
 CONCLUSION. 96 
 
 ABBREVIATIONS . 99 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 101 
 
 Vll 
 
ly ,')». 
 
 
 
 
 << •' 
 
 r'* 
 
 
 
 ■S' 
 
 •• r.:* 
 
 • ^ « * » .< 
 
 < 
 
 t, 
 
 
 ■m 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 /. 
 
 I 
 
 *'V •■ :' 
 
 
 >1 
 
 * , <; - 
 
 >.' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 ,f''i 
 
 *v 
 
 m. 
 
 >' •■■• l.t 
 
 
 '*/• ' ' 
 
 f./*' 
 
 . \v A 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 . ^ 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
INTEODUCTION 
 
 "l\a<TTT]pLov in Eom. iii^ 25 is recognized by modern exegetes as 
 a term of very special importance. Deissmann has well said: 
 
 Dass znr Erklarung dieses feierlichen Paulnsbekenntnisses keine 
 Vorarbeit zii schwierig nnd zu genaii sein kann, ist gewis's; wir 
 stehen bier vor dem Zentrnm der Frommigkeit des Apostels’k^ 
 The profound difficulties surrounding this famous passage and the 
 painstaking study demanded for its solution explain the wide 
 divergencies among modern authors as to its precise literal mean¬ 
 ing. The words of Schweizer may sound exaggerated but an inves¬ 
 tigation of the history of the problem in recent exegesis will bear 
 out his remark: “ Unstreitig ist der Sinn dieser Stelle so schwer 
 auszumitteln, dass kaum je eine Auslegung allgemeine Anerken- 
 nung linden durfte^k^ Even the foremost scholars of the present 
 day confess their inability to grasp and understand St. Paul’s 
 concept of tAao-r^piov. Sanday-Headlam speak of it thus: Fol¬ 
 lowing the example of St. Paul and St. John and the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews we speak of something in this great Sacrifice, which 
 we call ^ Propitiation k We believe that the Holy Spirit spoke 
 through these writers, and that it was His Will that we should use 
 this word. But it is a word which we must leave it to Him to 
 interpret. We drop our plummet into the depth, but the line 
 attached to it is too short, and it does not touch the bottom. The 
 awful processes of the Divine Mind we cannot fathom ’k ^ 
 
 In the face of this discouraging confession an investigation of 
 the problem would seem almost hopeless of results. Yet the ex¬ 
 treme difficulty of the question may well arouse interest and the 
 earnest desire for a satisfactory answer, while the importance of 
 IXaaT^pLov for N. T. theology justifies our attempt at a solution in 
 a monograph. Eecent research, especially by Deissmann, seems to 
 open new avenues in the right direction and our undertaking is 
 invited by the prospects of a fair measure of success. 
 
 "lAASTHPIOS und IAA2THPI0N, ZntlW (1903), 208-209. 
 
 ^StK^ (1858), 466. 
 
 ® Ep. to the Rom., 94. 
 
 1 
 
I 
 
 i 
 
 j 
 
 I 
 
PART I—HISTORICAL 
 
.f 
 
 
CHAPTEE I 
 
 The Text 
 
 The Pauline IXaar^pLov is not a problem of textual criticism but 
 one of historico-exegetical investigation. Hence, at the very outset 
 it is important to note 1) any variants of the text, and 2) to 
 know what meaning the term is given in the versions. 
 
 According to Tischendorff ^ the Latin of the bilingual codes 
 Claramontanus (D), Sangermanensis (E), and Boernerianus (G) 
 is propitiatorem Propitiatorem is also the translation of 
 the Latin patristic writers Ambrosiaster,^ Pelagius,^ Ambrose,^ 
 Jerome,® and Orosius.® Augustine ’’ in two passages, and Eufinus ^ 
 in three places in his recension of Origen’s commentary on the 
 Eoman epistle, have propitiatorium In one place Eufinus ^ 
 has propitiatorium (sive propitiatorem)”. The translation pla- 
 cationem ” is found in Hilary.^® Most Latin translations follow 
 the Vulgate,^^ which has: Quern proposuit Deus propitiationem 
 per fidem in sanguine ipsius ”. However, we learn from Tischen- 
 dorff that the Vulgate code Harleianus** ^(harl) reads propi¬ 
 tiatorem ”. 
 
 Eight here we are presented with four different renderings in 
 the Latin. More varied and even surprising translations occur 
 in other versions. 
 
 A quite unusual reading is offered by the Bohairic: ^^Whom 
 God before set as a forgiver ( orpeifx®’ ) through (the) faith 
 in his blood ”; the Sahidic on the other hand gives IXaargpLov 
 an abstract meaning: This (one) whom God put aforetime for 
 forgiveness ( if KCW ) through the faith in his blood.” The editors 
 of the Sahidic version inform us that the Syriac, Armenian, and 
 
 ^ Novum Testamentum Graece, II, 378, Lipsiae, 1872. 
 
 2MPL, 17, 80. JMPL, 44, 133 and 213. 
 
 « MPG, 14, 947, 949, 950. 
 »MPG, 14, 946. 
 
 ^®MPL, 9, 415. 
 
 3MPL, 30, 661. 
 ^ MPL, 14, 577. 
 ® MPL, 23, 506. 
 
 «MPL, 31, 1188., 
 
 “ Vogels, Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Diisseldorf, 1922. 
 ^^Op. cit., 378. 
 
 “Horner, Coptic Version of the N. T. (Northern Dialect), III, 22. 
 “Coptic Version of the N. T. (Southern. Dialect), IV, 32. 
 
 5 
 
6 
 
 EtMopic versions read: For pnt him God, and made him an 
 atonement for faith in his blood ; while the Ethiopic ro has: 
 
 For because of him he gave to us his mercy in faith The 
 Arabic^® retains the reading propitiatorium^’: Quern Deus prae- 
 constituit propitiatorium per fidem, interveniente ipsius sanguine 
 
 With such an assortment of meanings to select from, we need not 
 be at all astonished to find all early authorities for the English 
 translation at variance in interpreting iXacrrypiov in Eom. iii, 25. 
 Wiclif translates: Whom God ordeynde forghyvere hi feith in 
 his blood Tyndale prefers: Whom God hath made a seate 
 of mercy thorow faith in his blond ’b Cranmer reads: Whom 
 God hath set forth to be the obtayner of m,ercy thorow fayth, by the 
 meanes of hys blonde The Geneva Edition chooses the ab¬ 
 stract 'meaning: Whom God hath set forthe to be a pacification 
 through faith in his blonde Later and modern editions gen¬ 
 erally affect propitiation, the Eevised Version having on the 
 margin to be propitiatory But the Twentieth Century IST. T.^^ 
 has: For God set him before the world, to be, by the shedding 
 
 of his blood, a means of reconciliation through faith ’b 
 
 Neither do we find a uniform rendering in the German. 
 According to the Lutheran bible the passage means: ^^Welchen 
 Gott hat vorgestellt zu einem Gnadenstuhl, durch den Glauben 
 in seinem Blut ^b^^ Cartier who translates from the Vulgate 
 has: Welchen Gott zur Aussohnung durch den Glauben in seinem 
 Blut vorgestellt hat and Arndt who also bases his translation 
 on the Vulgate chooses: ^AVelchen Gott dargestellt hat als Siihne 
 durch den Glauben in seinem Blute ^b Jaeck and Allioli also 
 
 Op. cit., 33. 
 
 Waltonus, Biblia Polyglotta, V, 645, London, 1657. 
 
 ” The New Testament translated from the Latin in the year 1380 by J. 
 Wiclif, London, 1810. 
 
 “ The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, published 
 in 1526, London, 1836. 
 
 ^®The English Hexapla, London, 1846. 'pjjg English Hexapla. 
 
 The Holy Bible, Two Version Edition, 1244-1245, Oxford, 1899. 
 
 Twentieth Century New Testament, a translation from the original 
 Greek, 355, New York, 1904. 
 
 Die Bibel nach der deutschen Uebersetzung Martin Luther’s, 128, Coin, 
 1876. 
 
 ’‘‘Biblia Sacra Latino-Germanica, IV, 303, Constantiae, 1763. 
 
 Das Neue Testament, 116, Eegensburg, 1903. 
 
 ’®Die Heilige Schrift, 189, Leipzig, 1866, 
 
 Die Heilige Schrift, 160, New York, 1894, 
 
7 
 
 follow the Vulgate, yet their translations differ. While the former 
 has: ^^Welohen Grott ziim Versohnungs-Opfer dnrch den Glanben 
 an sein Bint bestinunt hat the latter gives just the opposite: 
 “Welchen Gott dargestellt hat als 8ilhnopfer durch den Glanben 
 in seinem Blute 
 
 This short survey of IXaaTgpLov in Eom. iii, 25 is evidence 
 enough to show that translators had difficulty with the w.'>rd. 
 Apart from the fact that it demonstrates the urgent need of a 
 special and careful investigation, it leaves the impression that 
 St. Pauhs concept of the term was manifestly more comprehensive 
 than is generally believed. Undoubtedly every translator strove to 
 give IXao-T^pLov that one particular content which, in his opinion, 
 would best express its application to Christ. Quite a variety of 
 readings result, and we find expressed the ideas of expiation, pro¬ 
 pitiation, reconciliation, forgiveness, mercy, and sacrifice. It needs 
 no proof to show that all these elements may have reference to 
 Christ in His sacrifice. This permits the assertion that this single 
 word contains more than one element. It will be well, then, to 
 bear this in mind when dealing with the history of the interpre¬ 
 tation of St. PauTs lXa(TT^piov, which will be taken up in the next 
 chapter, and especially when making the literary investigation. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 History of the Interpretation of IAA5THPION in Rom. hi, 25 
 
 1. IN MODERN EXEGESIS 
 
 The large number of commentators who discuss the meaning of 
 IXao-T^piov in Rom. iii^ 25 makes it impossible to quote them all 
 at great length. Therefore, in order to describe briefly the modern 
 history of the problem, the authors have been grouped around 
 the several, general views proposed as possible explanations. Let 
 it be added, however, that, even though the interpretations may be 
 put into general classes, it is no easy matter to subdivide them, 
 because the various theories and methods of explanation are often 
 intermingled. Doubtless it will be best to let the individual authors 
 speak for themselves; for the sake of brevity, that only will be 
 quoted which is considered necessary to convey their acceptation 
 of the term. 
 
 I. The 0. T. Propitiatory or Mercy-Seat the Type; Jesus 
 
 Christ the Anti-Type* 
 
 The most prominent opinion among moderns is that IXaaT^piov 
 in Rom. iii^ 25 must be interpreted in the light of 0. T. usage. 
 Forbes justly remarks that to assign to the term any other meaning 
 than that which St. Paul knew every reader of the 0. T. must 
 attach to it, “ seems almost equivalent to saying that he wrote to 
 be misunderstood, or was incompetent to select a fit expression to 
 render his meaning clear and unambiguous The majority of 
 modern scholars maintain, therefore, that the Pauline term is an 
 allusion to the in the Holy of Holies, which Hebrew word 
 
 the LXX rendered by IXacri^piov. 
 
 The rTn 05 , as it is described in Ex. xxv^ 17-23, was a slab of 
 
 solid gold, distinct from the ark of the covenant. It was 2J cubits 
 long and cubits wide and corresponded exactly with the meas¬ 
 urements of the ark over which it was placed. From opposite ends 
 
 ^ Comm, on Rom., 166. 
 
 8 
 
9 
 
 of the propitiatory ^ rose a pair of golden cherubim. Their faces 
 were bent downwards in the direction of the propitiatory, while 
 the wings with which each was furnished met overhead, so as to 
 cover the propitiatory.® Under their extended wings Jahveh had 
 His peculiar dwelling place. On the day of Atonement the High 
 Priest sprinkled the propitiatory seven times with the blood of 
 the sin-oifering as an act of expiation and propitiation (Lev. xvi, 
 19). St. Paul then, these authors say, in his Roman epistle desig¬ 
 nates Christ as the antitype of the 0. T. IXaar^pLov and as the 
 reality of all that it symbolized. 
 
 A. With Reference to the Sacrifice of Christ. 
 
 1. The hlood-sprinhled propitiatory or mercy-seat typical of 
 Christ hlood-sprinhled in His Sacrifice. 
 
 As a general rule modern exegetes regard as a derivative 
 
 of the Piel form ^90 which means to expiate, to propitiate, to 
 
 atone ’ and “ is the technical term in the Mosaic ritual, for the 
 object and intent of sacrificeThis leads some moderns to see 
 in the blood-sprinkled propitiatory on the Atonement day a type 
 of the bloody sacrifice of Christ. The tertium comparationis 
 as Philippi ® puts it, is simply this, that Christ, sprinkled with 
 blood, resembles the Kapporeth sprinkled with blood and the 
 Pauline word therefore retains its historically fixed reference to 
 the Kapporeth as the means of expiation Kar According 
 
 to Belsham ® Christ is the K. T. mercy-seat sprinkled and con¬ 
 secrated by his own blood, as that of old was by the blood of the 
 appointed victim”. Comparison of the sacrifice of Christ to the 
 
 2 The translation “ propitiatory ” is the adoption of “ propitiatorium ” 
 of the Latin versions, while the term “ mercy-seat ” came through the 
 “ Gnadenstuhl ” of Luther’s translation and the “ seat of mercy ” of Tyn- 
 dale. Commentators have accepted the terms propitiatory or mercy-seat 
 and use the two indiscriminately when referring to the O. T. ri'ts. 
 
 ® The question concerning the detailed construction and minor purposes 
 of the O. T. propitiatory is much disputed. It is irrelevant to our investi¬ 
 gation. For particulars see discussions of Tostatus, Opera, 39-41; Corn, 
 a Lapide, Comm, in S. S., I, 639^641; Dibellius, Die Lade Jahves, 38 ff.; 
 Orfali, Area Foederis, 29-31; Salianus, Epitome, 232 ff., and Commentaries 
 on Ex. XXV, 17. 
 
 * Lange, Comm, on H. Scrip., V, 132-133. 
 
 * Comm, on Rom., 144-145. 
 
 ® Epistles of Paul, I, 76. 
 
10 
 
 blood-sprinkled propitiatory suggests, in the opinion of Briggs,^ 
 ‘‘^the application of his blood ... to the propitiatory in accord¬ 
 ance with the ritual of the day of Atonement ; and the Messiah 
 is thus the blood-sprinkled propitiatory Priestley ^ selects the 
 meaning propitiatory because it shows Christ in His sacrifice as 
 the N. T. reality; and, as the 0. T. propitiatory was sprinkled with 
 blood once a year, so now ‘^^the apostle, by way of figure, repre¬ 
 sents his blood as sprinkled upon it’k Zeller® sees in Christ the 
 antitypical propitiatory der besprengt mit dem eigenen Bint . . . 
 die Siihne wirklich nnd allgemein leistet, welche das A. T. vorge- 
 bildet hatte According to Whitby the mercy-seat in the Holy 
 of Holies was styled IXacrr^piov, because it was the place where 
 God promised to be propitious ^k Applying the term to Christ: 
 as those under the 0. T., who desired to have God propitious to 
 them, were to come with the blood of their sin-ofiering to the 
 propitiatory, so under the gospel dispensation they must expect 
 to find God propitious to them, through the blood of Christ, their 
 mercy-seat’k Weidner^^ sees in Christ as our High Priest and 
 Sacrifice, ^‘'sprinkled with His own blood, . . . that which the 
 cover, or kapporeth, or ^ mercy-seat ^ had been typically ’k In the 
 opinion of Plumer St. Paufis IXaarT^piov is “ borrowed from the 
 Septuagint version of the Old Testament and, as the Israelites 
 obtained pardon and acceptance as public worshipers by the sprink¬ 
 ling of blood on the mercy-seat, so eternal life is dispensed from 
 Christ ^k ScofiekP^ writes that in fulfilment of the 0. T. type 
 
 Christ is Himself the hilasmos, that which propitiates,’ and 
 the hilasterion, ^ the place of propitiation ’—the mercy-seat sprink¬ 
 led with His own blood ’k Tholuck argues that as Christ is 
 represented in the N. T. both as High Priest and as victim, so 
 konnte auch im A. B. nicht nur das dargebrachte Opfer als Bild 
 Christi betrachtet werden, sondern auch der mit dem versohnenden 
 Blute besprengte Gnadenstuhl ’k That Christ in His own blood 
 became the H. T. reality of the 0. T. blood-sprinkled propitiatory 
 is also the view of Poolfi'"^ Kneelandd® and Gaebelein.’^ 
 
 ■^Messias of the Apostles, 147-148. 
 
 ® Notes on Scripture, IV. 275. 
 
 ® Bibl. Handworterbuch, 248. 
 
 Comm, on 0. and N. T., IV, 543-544. 
 
 “Bibl. Theology of N. T., IT, 134. 
 
 Comm, on Bom., 132-133. ^'^Annotations upon the Bible, III, 480. 
 
 '^^N. T. and Psalms, 203. N. T. in Greek and English, IT, 110. 
 
 Brief an d. Bbm., 123. Ep. to the Rom., 24. 
 
11 
 
 2. The Propitiatory as Mediwn of Mercy, Pardon, and Forgive¬ 
 ness, a Type of Christ. 
 
 On the Atonement day the High Priest sprinkled the propi¬ 
 tiatory with the blood of the sin-offering to obtain forgiveness and 
 pardon for sins and the mercy of God. Hence some commentators 
 emphasize the rendition of the Pauline word as mercy-seat, to 
 show that Christ through Plis Sacrifice procured for mankind for¬ 
 giveness and pardon for sins and the mercy of God. These scholars 
 find the relation between the 0. T. mercy-seat and Christ not so 
 much in the sacrifice itself^ as in the effects produced by that 
 sacrifice. 
 
 Thus Sheldon thinks that reference to the terminology of the 
 LXX version and to patristic interpretation would dictate a pre¬ 
 ference for the expression ^ mercy-seat ^ ’k If the 0. T. mercy-seat 
 was only a type, as Lechner believes, so zeigt bier der Apostel, 
 dass Christus der wahre Gnadenstuhl sei, durch welchen Allen 
 vollkommene Vergebung zu Theil werde The IXaaTrjptov in the 
 Holy of Plolies, to speak with Olshausen,^'’ represented itself to the 
 Israelites ^^as the place from which the forgiveness of their sins 
 proceeded And now Christ as the X. T. reality is solemnly pre¬ 
 sented in His sacrifice to all peoples in order that they may 
 receive forgiveness of sins through his blood’k John Brown 
 writes that the Pauline term designates Christ as the true mercy- 
 seat, in whom we may see God fully reconciled to us ’k In much 
 the same way Trollope,^^ Bosanquet,^^ and Storrer refer the 
 Pauline word to Christ as the true mercy-seat. According to 
 Otto the typical mercy-seat stood behind the veil within the 
 Holy of Holies; its antitype, however, der wahre Gnadenstuhl 
 ist durch Zerreissung des Yorhanges seines Fleisches vor Augen 
 gestellt 
 
 3. The Propitiatory as Manifestation of the Divine Presence, a 
 type of Christ. 
 
 Besides being the medium of forgiveness, pardon, and mercy the 
 propitiatory served also as the centre of the divine presence and 
 manifestation (Ex. xxv, 22; Lev. xvi, 2). Accordingly some 
 
 ^ N. T. Theology, 230. 
 
 III. Sclirift (1. N. T,, 021. 
 ■■‘"Comm, on N. T., HI, 540. 
 *n^]xpositioii of Rom., 113. 
 
 -‘‘Analecta TheoL, II, 330. 
 Paraphrase on Rom., 43. 
 Rrief an (1. ROm., 23. 
 
 ■■“^ Rrief an d. Rlim., 74. 
 
12 
 
 authors find in the Pauline IXaar^piov a similar representation 
 withoufi however, excluding the notion of sacrifice. 
 
 Concerning the propitiatory in the Holy of Holies Eitschl says 
 it signified das hochste Symbol gottlicher Gegenwart in der 
 Israelitischen Gemeinde Paulus konnte nun die Qualitat 
 
 Jesu mit dem Ausdrucke hezeichnen ”, he continues, der jeden 
 Israeliten an die Gnadengegenwart Gottes erinnerte For 
 
 Eitschl then IXacjT^piov denotes properly a divine representation. 
 Similarly Bleihtreu: ‘^^^Dort war er mit seiner Herrlichkeit und 
 Gnadenmacht unter Israel gegenwartig But the 0. T. 
 
 IXaarrjpLov also Served another purpose : Als Slihnort ist die 
 
 Kapporeth blutbesprengt und in der gleichen Eigensohaft des 
 Slihnortes wird sie dann weiter auch das, wozu sie von Gott in 
 Aussicht genommen ist, namlich die Statte seiner Gegenwart 
 The Pauline term in its application to Christ, according to 
 Bleihtreu, has then the following signification: Hass fiir die 
 
 Gemeinde des Heuen Testamentes Christus Jesus der Ort sei, da 
 in entsprechender Weise Gottes gnadenvolle Herrlichkeit strahlt, 
 ist . . . ein ebenso wahrer als einfacher Gedanke”.^® From these 
 quotations it is seen that Bleihtreu does not find in lXa<TT^pLov the 
 elements of expiation or propitiation. These are added durch 
 die beigefugten Worte, iv tm avrov mpLarL ” which, he adds, clearly 
 refer to a sacrifice. Therefore he states that IXadr^piov ^H^eines- 
 falls eine Siihne oder ein Suhnopfer hezeichnen muss ”, hut dass 
 in dem Ausdrucke nothwendigerweise eine Vertretung Gottes uns 
 gegenuher liegt Like Eitschl, Bleihtreu thinks that IXacrr^pLov 
 primarily means the manifestation of the divine presence. 
 
 ^IXaar^pLov, according to Vaughan,^® is properly the neuter of the 
 adjective and means propitiatory or expiatory ”. And the 0. T. 
 type, when sprinkled with blood, became the symbolic centre of 
 the personal hope of mercy, as well as the Divine Presence in 
 Israel ”; the application of the word to Christ “ constitutes Him 
 as it were the mercy-seat of the new temple in which God dwells 
 with redeemed man ”. Gifford,^^ interpreting the Pauline term as 
 mercy-seat ”, explains that as the 0. T. IXaar^piov ‘^‘^was the cen- 
 
 Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, II, 168. 
 
 ^^Op. cit., 170. 
 
 2«StKr (1883), 559. 
 
 Op. cit., 561. Op. cit., 560. 
 
 Op. cit., 559. ^'^Ep. to the Rom., 73-74. 
 
 Ibid. Comm, on Rom., 96. 
 
13 
 
 tral point of the divine presence and manifestation, the place of 
 meeting and communion, between God and the representative of 
 his people ”, so now in Christ the full manifestation of God to 
 man is made Livermore too writes that Christ is now the 
 mercy-seat, the bright and holy place of the Divine presence and 
 glory shining in his face The propitiatory in the 0. T., Paige 
 opines, ^^was the place where the divine presence was specially 
 manifested, and where the divine goodness was proclaimed And 
 in applying the term to Christ St. Paul designates Him as the 
 IST. T. mercy-seat because he was the brightness of his Father’s 
 glory, and the express image of his person (Hehr. i, 3), thus 
 manifesting the divine presence 
 
 4. The Propitiatory as Medium of Communication and Meeting 
 with God, a Type of Christ. 
 
 We read in Num. vii, 89 that Moses communicated with Jahveh 
 through the medium of the propitiatory. Wherefore some exegetes 
 see in St. Paul’s use of IXaaTrjpiov a similar signification. 
 
 The 0. T. mercy-seat, Vincent remarks, was the meeting- 
 place of God and man ”; the place of mediation and manifesta¬ 
 tion ”. In the H. T., through Jesus Christ, ^^the antitype of the 
 mercy-seat, the Mediator, man has access to the Father (Eph. ii, 
 18)”. And Christ as antitype ^^is now brought out where all can 
 draw nigh and experience its reconciling power ”. When Christ 
 is compared to the mercy-seat of the 0. T., the idea naturally 
 conveyed to the Jewish mind would be ^Hbat through him God 
 meets with us, forgiving our sins, and comimuning with us ”; in 
 other words, St. Paul meant to say that God has himself set 
 forth this victim, Jesus, as a mercy-seat, where he will meet you” 
 (J. Clarke).^® What in the Jewish ritual the bloody sacrifices 
 were, that in Paul’s apprehension the life, sufferings and death of 
 Christ are in Christianity”. How in the Hebrew system there 
 was a Mercy-Seat where God met humanity ”; in the Christian 
 system God hath set forth before all the people Jesus Christ his 
 Son, as a Mercy-Seat” (Abbot 
 
 Ep. to the Rom., 114. 
 
 Comm, on N. T., IV, 82. 
 
 Word Studies, III, 46-47. 
 
 ^ Ideas of Paul, 308. 
 
 “'Ep. to the Rom., 121. 
 
14 
 
 5. The Propitiatory as a Cover of expiation-propitiation, a Type 
 of Christ. 
 
 Some authors, basing their arguments upon Ex. xxv, 20, hold 
 that the served as the immediate cover for the ark of the 
 
 covenant.^® They derive ri“105 from the Kal form 1DD whose 
 
 primary root meaning,^^ they say, is ^ to cover ’ and, in combina¬ 
 tion with the sacrificial ritual of the Atonement day, they conclude 
 for the meaning of cover of expiation or propitiation. In Rom. 
 iii^ 25 IXao-rypiov would then refer to Christ as the H. T. expiatory 
 or propitiatory cover. 
 
 Hence Cremer observes that the 0. T. had as object 
 
 die siihnende Bedeckung der Bundeslade mit dem Gesetze darin 
 What St. Paul wishes to say in Rom. iii^ 25 is that God gave 
 Christ to us zur siihnenden Bedeckung which evidently means 
 that Christ in His sacrifice covered the sins of man before God. 
 Weber is of opinion that the n"100 in the Holy of Holies served 
 
 “ als ein Siihngerathe ’’ and it is such insofern sie eben das 
 Gesetz, das wider Israel spricht, vor Jehova zudeckt St. Paul, 
 he goes on to say, compares Christ to this instrument of atonement, 
 and Christ is our IXaaryjpLov ev rw avTov alpiaTL, und diese Wer- 
 bindung erinnert an das gesetzliche Siihnung der Siinde durch 
 das blutige Opfer ’b Seeberg assures us that the is called 
 
 l\aaTT]piov weil er der Deckung dessen dient, angesichts dessen 
 Gott dem siindigen Volk hatte ziirnen miissen’’, i. e., the ark con¬ 
 taining the law, for durch Deckung des Gesetzes ist auch die 
 
 ^‘’Dillman, Ex. und Lev., 313, Nowack, Lehrbiich d. hebr. Archaologie, 
 II, 60 and others say the ark had a cover of its own and that the n”^2 
 was a kind of sheltering roof (Schutzdach). 
 
 The primary root meaning of is disputed. Lexicons usually give 
 
 ‘to cover, to overlay’; cf. Gesenius, Thesaurus, II, 708, Kbnig, Lehrge- 
 baude d. hebr. Sprache, II, 201 and ExpT (1911), 378-380, where he de¬ 
 fends this interpretation. On the other hand, Langdon, ExpT (1911), 320- 
 325, and others, say it means ‘ to remove, to wipe away.’ Driver, ERE, V, 
 654, 2, says the meaning is still uncertain; F. Brown, Hebrew-English 
 Lexicon, 497, writes that the original meaning is doubtful, but that it 
 most probably is to cover. 
 
 42 Worterbuch d. neut. Gracitat, 509-510. 
 
 Vom Zorne Gottes, 273-274. 
 
 Der Tod Christi, 184-185. 
 
15 
 
 Siinde zugedeckt^^ St. Paul, in Eom. iii, 25, has in mind the 
 circumstances of eine Deckung which apparently means that 
 by His sacrifice Christ covered the sins of mankind. 
 
 B. ^Yitllout Reference to the Sacrifice of Christ. 
 
 Mention must be made of some few authors who interpret the 
 Pauline IXaaTrjpiov as designating Christ the antitype of the 0. T. 
 type, but who fail to find in the term any direct or indirect refer¬ 
 ence to the sacrifice of Christ. 
 
 Thus Jacobs^® thinks that when St. Paul employs the word 
 IXaaTrjpiov, he means to say that ^Hn Christ all that is fulfilled 
 which the Mercy Seat had foreshadowed ’k The term has no refer¬ 
 ence to sacrifice but has inherent in it the idea of the covering 
 of sins made at the mercy-seat. In Edm. iii, 25 Christ as the 
 fulfilment must, then, be styled the H. T. cover for sin. To Agus 
 the word represents Christ protecting and directing His church. 
 As the propitiatory was placed over the ark as a protection and 
 as from there Jahveh spoke to His people and directed them, sic 
 Christus est super Ecclesiam, et ipsam protegit et Deum nobis 
 propitium reddit et Ecclesiam totam instituit et gubernat 
 Macknight and Bree see in the Pauline word, Christ the anti¬ 
 type of the 0. T. mercy-seat “ set forth by God for receiving the 
 worship of men and dispensing pardon to them Taylor inter¬ 
 prets it as designating Christ, the true mercy-seat, because He is 
 the Foundation . . . upon which we present all our Services and 
 Devotions to him, in Hopes of Pardon and Acceptance ’k 
 
 According to Drummond the Pauline term is best explained 
 ^Svhen we understand that Christ stands to the Christian in the 
 same relation as the mercy-seat to the ancient Hebrew ’k The 
 Hebrev/s regarded the mercy-seat as the place where God made 
 Himself known to Moses, and communed with him ’’ and in this 
 sense also the figure would be applicable to Christ’k Hobart'’^ 
 discards all viev/s that express a relation to the sacrifice of Christ 
 and prefers propitiation to mean the meeting-place for men and 
 God^k Hewcomewould have it represent Olirist ^Gas the mes- 
 
 Annotations on Rom,, 70-71. Ep. to tho Rom., 2S1. 
 
 Ep. ad P^om., 192. “ Expositions in Rom., 43. 
 
 ^^Apost. Epistles, I, 72. The New Testament, 349. 
 
 Study of H. Scripture, 11, 117. 
 
 Paraphrase on Rom., 269. 
 
16 
 
 senger of divine mercy, and the medium of divine communications 
 to mankind 
 
 II. lAA^THPION : Christ the Expiator-Propitiator 
 
 A second group of commentators contend that IXao-Ti^pLov in Eom. 
 iii^ 25 means that Christ in His sacrifice became the expiator or 
 propitiator for the sins of the world. Few are the modern exegetes 
 who venture this opinion. 
 
 Eosenmuller arrives at this conclusion by a comparative study 
 of nouns ending in {t)tjplov and tracing their derivation to verbs. 
 Such nouns generally indicate id quod habet vim aliquid effici- 
 endi, ut awrypLov —vim servandi He concludes that the Pauline 
 term means expiatorem, eum qui habet vim expiandi ’k Bret- 
 schneider renders IXacTr'qpiov vim expiandi habens ; applying 
 this to Eom. iii, 25 he sees in it Christ the expiationis auctor 
 Holden explains it as meaning a propitiator/’ as does Eohin- 
 son who, in reference to Eom. iii, 25, contends that it means 
 
 a propitiator, one who makes propitiation 
 
 III. lAA^THPION : The Expiatory-Propitiatory Sacrifice 
 
 OF Christ 
 
 Another group of modern scholars propose what they believe to 
 be a more plausible explanation, which has in the H. T., they 
 maintain, the analogy of doctrine more decidedly in its favor.®'^ 
 They all agree that IXaa-TypLov in Eom. iii, 25 has some relation 
 to the sacrifice of Christ, yet they are at a loss as to whether the 
 meaning is expiatory or propitiatory or both, and they arrive at 
 their conclusions by various methods of investigation. 
 
 1. Some seek the solution of the problem in the symbolical 
 sacrifices of the O.T. which were so many types of the sacrifice 
 of Christ. MacGarvey-Pendleton state St. Paul “makes it ap¬ 
 parent that the sacrifices of the Old Testament were types ”, because 
 they foreshadowed “ Christ, the real propitiatory sacrifice ”. 
 Comely thinks of “ vel piaculum in genere vel rectius sacrifi- 
 
 Scholia in N. T., Ill, 581. 
 
 Lexicon Graeco-Lat. N. T., I, 586. 
 
 Christian Expositor, II, 355. 
 
 Greek-Eng. Lexicon of N. T., 387. 
 
 Cf. Jn. I, 29; Eph. V, 2; Hebr. IX, 24; I Peter I, 19 and II, 24. 
 
 Thess., Cor., Gal., and Eom., 321. 
 
 Comm, ad Eom., 190. 
 
17 
 
 cium piaculare sen propitiatorinm and cites as authority St. 
 John Chrysostom who, according to him, contrasts Christ’s sacri¬ 
 fice to the sacrificiis propitiatoriis veteris oeconomiae Gnyse 
 and Schaff similarly appeal to the 0. T. sacrificial types in sup¬ 
 porting propitiatory sacrifice 
 
 2. Others deduce the meaning expiatory-propitiatory sacrifice 
 by comparing the sacrifice of Christ to the sacrificial Mood 
 sprinkled on the propitiatory. Funke denies that sin was expiated 
 by the sprinkling of blood on the propitiatory but “ nur einstweilen 
 bis auf das vollkommene Siihnopfer, welches ist Christus, bedeckt 
 wurde Therefore by the sacrifice of Christ sin was covered 
 not only for a time, sondern wirklich fiir immer bedeckt 
 He concludes that in Edm. iii, 25 IXaarrjpiov means das wahre 
 Siihnopfer Kruger has Siihnopfer, wobei vielfach an das 
 Opfer des Yersohnungstages gedacht wird und an die Kapporeth”. 
 Henry,®® who also refers to Christ as the antitype of the 0. T. 
 propitiatory, selects the meaning propitiatory sacrifice 
 
 3. Then there are commentators who insist quite as strongly 
 that the context in Rom. iii, 25 demands the rendition of expiatory- 
 propitiatory sacrifice. It is certain, says Riickert,®’’ dass Paulus 
 Christum als denjenigen denke, durch welchen die Siihnung der 
 menschlichen Siinde zu Stande komme ”. And it is probable dass 
 er ihn als Solchen unter dem Bilde eines Suhnopfers darstellen 
 wolle ”, ’for which interpretation Iv rw o-vtov aifxari zu sprechen 
 scheint ”. Beck,®® who holds that IXaarrjpiov in general means 
 
 etwas was Siihn-Kraft hat oder zur Siihnung dient ”, has this to 
 say of the Pauline use of the term: Kamentlich weisst unser 
 ganzer Context, indem darin a7roXvTpd)(7€(D<; (v. 24), at/xa, Trapecn^ tmv 
 TTpoyeyovoTiov apuapTyp^droiv zur Sprache kommt, auf den Begriff eines 
 Siihnenden Opfers”. Baur,®® Reischl,^® Gurlitt,'^^ and Jiilicher 
 decide for the meaning “ Siihnopfer ” because of the word 
 aTToXvTpwcTL^ iu V. 24, which shows, they say, that the sacrifice of 
 Christ was primarily one of expiation. Kahnis,'^® commenting on 
 Rom. Ill, 25, explains that Christ’s sacrifice delivered menvon 
 
 Practical Expositor, III, S81. 
 Popular Comm, on N. T., Ill, 46. 
 ®^StKr (1842), 314. 
 
 Op. cit., 315. 
 
 ®* Op. cit., 320. 
 
 ®® Rechtfertigung n. R()m., 204. 
 
 ®" Exposition of 0. and N. T., IX, 25. 
 
 Brief an d. Riim., I, 173. 
 
 ®^ Brief an d. Rom., 307-308. 
 
 ®® Paulus, 539. 
 
 ’®H1. Schrift d. X. T., 611. 
 '^StKr (1840), 977. 
 
 "“Schriften d. X". T., II, 239. 
 Lutherisclie Dogmatik, I, 584. 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 cler Knechtscliaft der Slinde {a7ro\vrp(oai), zerreisst den Schnldbrief 
 der gegen sie zeugte (Kol. 2, 14), bedeckt die Gl^ott iind Menscben 
 trennende Sbnde als Snbnopfer {l\a<jTi]pLov)”. David Brown/^ 
 Connybeare-Howson/^ Scbedd/® and Stuart ‘ ^ consider tbe context 
 of Eom. iii^ 25, especially tbe pbrase eV rw avrov atputn, sufficient 
 evidence for tbe meaning propitiatory sacrifice According to 
 Weinel/® if we try to imagine here “a concrete instance of the 
 abstract noun ^ propitiation it must be confessed that the idea of 
 sacrifice is tbe most natural ’b Therefore he stands for the mean¬ 
 ing of propitiatory sacrifice as also does Eashdall who discusses 
 the term at some length. 
 
 Morison concludes that iXaar^ptov was employed by St. Paul as 
 an adjective ^A’etaining its primary adjectival import and force 
 with the meaning propitiatory ^b^® He admits that in sub¬ 
 stance at least propitiatory sacrifice is the correct interpreta¬ 
 tion of the Apostle’s expression ”, because if Jesus was ^ pro¬ 
 pitiatory ’ at all, he was propitiatory as a sacrifice ’b^^ That such 
 an idea was present to the Apostle’s mind is put beyond all 
 reasonable question by the very next words, ^through faith in his 
 blood ’ Although Sanday-Headlam say that IXafTr^^piov as sub¬ 
 stantive strictly means place or vehicle of propitiation they 
 prefer to take it in Eom. iii, 25 ^^as adj. accus. masc. added as 
 predicate to That they admit the presence of the element 
 
 of sacrifice in the term, is evident from the following: It is 
 
 impossible to get rid from this passage of the double idea (1) of 
 a sacrifice; (2) of a sacrifice which is propitiatory. In any case 
 the phrase h tm avrov atptarL carries with it the idea of sacrificial 
 Ifioodshedding Whatever sense we assign to IXacrr^piov, “ the 
 fundamental idea which underlies the word must be that of pro¬ 
 pitiation This is also the opinion of Knight; the term 
 should simply be rendered propitiatory, and regarded as quali¬ 
 fying or ”. So also Denney who takes the word as predicate to 
 
 Ep. to the Eom., 36. 
 
 Life and Ep. of Paul, II, 167. 
 
 Op. cit., 295. 
 Op. cit., 87. 
 Op. cit., 88. 
 Op. cit., 91. 
 
 66 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 Comm, on Eom., 81. 
 
 Comm, on Eom., 152-153. 
 
 St. Paul, 307. 
 
 ’^‘’Atonement in Christ. Theology, 131-132. 
 
 Exposition of the III chapter of Eom., 303. 
 
 Op. cit., 304. Comm, on Eom., 179. 
 
 Expositor’s Gr. Test., II, 611. 
 
19 
 
 ov, 'meaning that Christ is conceived with propitiatory power, in 
 virtue of His death 
 
 4. Several exegetes arrive at the meaning expiatory-propitiatory 
 sacrifice comparing IXacTT^piov Avith analogous ivords ending in 
 {T)gpiov. Meyer starts out by saying that in general terminology 
 it means expiatoriiim ohne dass im Worte selhst schon die 
 nahere Sinnhestimmnng gegehen ist’h Then, in the light of 
 such AVOrds as KaOaprgpiov, (JMTijpLov, evyapiGTiqpiov, yapiarr^piov, etc., 
 which are found in the classics, he interprets the Pauline Avord as 
 
 Siihnopfer Avith the remark that the phrase in His blood 
 renders die Vorstellung Ann einem siihnenden Opfer klar genug ’k 
 Bisping gives the adjective the meaning siihnend, versdhnend 
 He then cites KaOdpcriov and xapto-rT^ptoi' as proof for his contention 
 that the substantive in Eom. iii, 25 means Siihnopfer ; this 
 interpretation passt . . . am schdnsten zu dem TrpoiOero und dem 
 ev Tw avrov at pun: als ein hlutiges Siihnopfer hat Cott Christum 
 olfentlich dargestellt ^k Thayer defines the adjective thus: 
 
 relating to appeasing or expiating, having placating or expia¬ 
 tory force, expiatory’k Quoting the same analogies as Meyer he 
 translates the Pauline substantiAn as ‘^11 expiatory sacrifice; a 
 piaciilar victim ^k DeWette and Hodge also appeal to similar 
 analogies taken from profane Greek, hut while the former selects 
 the translation Siihnopfer the latter chooses propitiatory 
 sacrifice ’k 
 
 5. Within the category of expiatory-propitiatory sacrifice must 
 
 be placed the interpretation of some who would render the Pauline 
 term as expiatory-propitiatory offering. Thus Lightfoot thinks 
 that lXa(jT7)pLov must be interpreted as a propitiatory offering 
 and quotes as confirmation Sta^ar^ptov, viKgTr^piov, and the parallels 
 mentioned by Meyer and others. Similarly Gray,^® Winer,®® 
 Stifler,®^ and Alford®® explain the AA^ord as meaning ^^propitiatory 
 offering and Cowles ®® understands it as a propitiatory offering 
 of a sacrificial nature ’k On the other hand Moule has a price 
 of expiation ^®® and an expiatory offering ’k^®^ Ripley ^®“ 
 
 Brief an d. Tldm., 141. ‘’“Biblical Museum, II, 23. 
 
 ^ Brief an d. Rom,, 141-142. ‘’"Grammar of N. T., Diction, 108. 
 
 ‘’^ Greek-Eng. Lexicon of N. T,, 301. Ep. to the Rom., GO. 
 
 ‘“Brief an d. Horn., 45. Greek Test., II, 343. 
 
 ‘’"Comm, on Rom., 83. ‘’‘’Longer Ep. of Paul, 37. 
 
 Rotes on Ep. of Paul, 271. 
 
 ^‘’"Ep. to tho Rom. (Expositor’s Bible), 03. 
 
 Ep. to the Rom. (Cambridge Bible), 85. Ep, to the Rom., 30. 
 
20 
 
 paraphrases the term as a propitiatory offering, an expiatory 
 victim^’ and Brnston/®^ in reference to Eom. in, 25, holds that it 
 does not signify always a propitiatory victim, but rather ^^nne 
 offrande (avdOrjjjLa) propitiatoire on expiatoire, offerte a la 
 Divinite Godwin renders the word mercy-offering ’’ and 
 Chalmers thinks it rather signifies the offering itself, than 
 the place in which the offering was sprinkled Platt says 
 the most natural and the only meaning suitable to the con¬ 
 text is ‘‘ a propitiatory offering—^a means of rendering God con¬ 
 sistently favorable towards sinful men and the means of reconcilia¬ 
 tion between God and man^k 
 
 6. Finally there are those who designate the sacrifice of Christ 
 as expiatory-propitiatory, in which case Christ Himself as IXaarrjpiov 
 may be styled an expiatory-propitiatory victim. So Beelen^®^ 
 believes that it signifies victimam piacularem ” and the same 
 interpretation is given by Wahl and Zorrelld*^^ For Bernardinus 
 a Piconio the word describes Christ as a victima propitians ; 
 so also MacEvillyd^^ Wordsworthargues for ‘^Sin-Offering, 
 or Propitiafory Victim Schleusner for “ Victima expiatoria ” 
 and Grimm for “ sacrificium expiatorium, victima piacularis ’k 
 
 IV. IAA;STHPI0N : Expiation'-Propittation 
 
 A few exegetes decide for the abstract meaning expiation or 
 propitiation. According to Schaefer the adjective signifies 
 “ versohnend oder siihnend ^k After examining other proposed 
 interpretations for the substantive in Eom. iii, 25 he concludes 
 as follows: “ Darum erscheint jene Erklarung als die vorziig- 
 lichere, die mit der Vulgata allgemein an ‘ Siihne oder Sohnung' 
 . . . denkt^k Jowett^^®, maintaining that the term is to be ex¬ 
 plained like (T0)T7]pLov in Ex. xx, 24, translates it “ propitiation 
 and this is also the meaning assigned to the word by Wardlaw.^^’’ 
 Miller widens the idea contained in the word to “ anv certain 
 
 ^«^ZntlW (1906), 77. 
 
 Ep. to the Rom., 90. 
 
 Lectures on Rom., 59. 
 
 DAC, II, 283, art. Propitiation. 
 Comm, in Rom., 59. 
 
 Clavis N. T., I, 238. 
 a/)9 Lexicon Graec., 262. 
 
 Ep. Pauli Expositio, I, 38. 
 
 Exposition of Ep. of Paul, I, 29. 
 
 T. in Greek, 217. 
 
 Lexicon Graeco-Lat. in IST. T., I, 850. 
 Lexicon Graeco-Lat. in Is. T., 205. 
 Brief an d. Rom., 136-137. 
 
 Ep. of Paul, II, 134. 
 
 Two Essays, 152. 
 
 Comm, on Rom., 119. 
 
21 
 
 something that makes clement, or secures ^ propitiation ’ To 
 believe Bushnell,^^” St. Paul, in Eom. iii^ 25, emphasizes the fact 
 that the sacrifice of Christ was only propitiatory and not expiatory. 
 His argument is: The Apostle has propitiation through faith 
 in his blood and not propitiation through his blood ’h Hence: 
 
 no propitiation therefore reaches the mark, that does not, on its 
 way, reconcile, or bring into faith, the subject for v/hom it is 
 made By such an arrangement of words the Apostle takes 
 away any possibility of the meaning of expiation; he admits, how¬ 
 ever, that the word is commonly used by pagan writers in a way 
 that implies expiation 
 
 V. IAA:§THPI0N : A Means-Memoeial of Expiation"- 
 
 Propitiatiox 
 
 There is finally a group of more recent commentators who hold 
 the view that IXuar^pLov expresses either the very general meaning 
 of a means of expiation or propitiation or, if a special and definite 
 interpretation should be offered, a memorial or monument of ex¬ 
 piation or propitiation. These authors conclude that the sacrifice 
 of Christ was the means of expiation or propitiation, or His sacri¬ 
 fice became as a memorial of expiation or propitiation. 
 
 1. Foremost in this class is Heissmann. In an interesting 
 article he investigates and discusses the use and meaning of the 
 adjective not only from a biblical point of view but also from that 
 of later profane Greek and inscriptions. He concludes that the 
 adjective can have a twofold signification, namely: was zur 
 
 Gnadigstimmung oder Versohnung (namlich der Gottheit oder 
 eines Menschen) in Beziehung steht oder dient, versohnend, pro¬ 
 pitiator ins, placatorius; 2) was zur Siihnung (namlich der Siinde) 
 in Beziehung steht oder dient, siihnend, expiatorius In every 
 
 individual case, he says, the context is the deciding factor in de¬ 
 termining whether the meaning is expiatory ” or “ propitiatory 
 Coming then to the substantive in Rom. iii, 25, Heissmann admits 
 two special applications as possible: Either Versohnungs- oder 
 Siihnungsopfer or Versdhnungs- oder Siihnungsgeschenk resp. 
 -denkmaHk^^^ But does the context in Rom. iii, 25 demand a 
 special meaning? Heissmann answers emphatically in the nega¬ 
 tive and concludes: '' Her Zusammenhang notigt keineswegs zur 
 
 Vicarious Sacrifice, I, 522. '-’Op. cit., 210. 
 
 Op. cit., 193. 
 
22 
 
 Annahme einer Specialbedeiitimg oder -anwenduiig von tAoo-r^ptov. 
 Die Allgemeinbedeutung geniigt vollstandig: ein Yersohnendes 
 oder Siihnendes^ Yersdhnniigs- oder Siihnnngsmittel Of these 
 two special meanings he maintains as most probable: Christ must 
 be considered als der Siihner oder das Shhnende 
 
 Almost all more recent exegetes have adopted Deissmann’s ex¬ 
 planation. Godet translates a means of propitiation ” and 
 Lattey a means or instrument of propitiation Parry 
 accepts ^^the agent of propitiation All of them add that if the 
 idea of sacrifice is not contained in the word itself, it follows 
 certainly from the connection wnth the clause in His blood 
 Schweizer,^^^ Zahn,^^® Hofmann,and Prenschen interpret 
 das Shhnemittel Stevens wants it taken in its etymolo¬ 
 gical sense as a means of rendering favorable, Shhnemittel, Ex- 
 piatoriiim’b Bernard Weiss ganz allgemein ein Mittel, 
 
 wodurch die Shnde in Gottes Angen zugedeckt wird ; Bey- 
 schlag etwas das shhnen kann, etwas Shhnkraftiges and 
 
 in Eom. iii^ 25, its use suggests the idea eines Suhnmittels also, 
 welches die Shnde vor Gott zudeckt nicht an und fhr sich, sondern 
 erst durch das, was es in dem glaubigen Menschen wirkt^k 
 Hsteri,^^*^ interpreting the term as Shhnungsmittel notes: 
 
 dieser Ausdruck kommt einzig und allein in dieser Stelle vor 
 But Lipsius insists that the word also means Shhnmittel, nicht 
 bios VersohnungsmitteHk^^® Both meanings, he adds, find appli¬ 
 cation in Eom. iii, 25, for the death of Christ was first of all 
 ein Opfertod an unsrer Btatt and then sofern dieser Opfertod 
 nothig war um der gdttlichen Gerechtigkeit willen, ein Shhn¬ 
 mittel To Prat it signifies here moyen d’expiation ’ on 
 
 ^ de propitiation ^ on peut-etre Pun et Pautre ^k Sickenberger 
 also includes the twofold notion for he renders the term ver- 
 
 ^-^Op. cit., 211, ^“Westminster Version, III, 29. 
 
 Ibid. Ep. to the Eom., 66. 
 
 Comm, on Eom., 152. Op. cit., 467. 
 
 Brief an d. Eom., 187. 
 
 Schriftbeweis, I, 226; cf. HI. Schrift d. H. T., Ill, 113. 
 
 Griech.-Deut. Handwortb. z. H. T., 530. 
 
 Theology of N. T., 413. 
 
 Paulinische Briefe, 45; cf. Das Neue Test., 16. 
 
 aSTeutest. Theologie, II, 147-148. Paulin, Lehrbegriff, 116. 
 
 Paulin. Eechtfertigungslehre, 134. 
 
 Op, cit., 144, Theologie de S. Paul, I, 288. 
 
 Briefe an d. Kor. und Eihu., 176. 
 
23 
 
 sohnende Gabe, Siihnmittel^ Siilinopfer According to Cone 
 it means ‘‘a means of propitiation or a propitiatory sacrifice 
 The sacrificial word propitiation ”, Beet declares, proves that 
 the redemption is sacrificial ”, and hence it is better to take the 
 word for a means of atonement, for a propitiatory sacrifice ”. To 
 Robertson it signifies propitiatory gift or means of propi¬ 
 tiation ”. 
 
 2. Next in order is the interpretation which views the sac¬ 
 rifice of Christ as a memorial or monnment of expiation or 
 propitiation. Feine translates the Pauline term Versohn- 
 nngs- Siihnnngsdenkmal ”. Fhr diese Bedentnng spricht das 
 Pradikat Trpo. Denn es dentet anf eine dffentliche Schanstellung 
 Christi ”. Near to this comes Lagrange Tin monnment on 
 
 plntot nn instrument de propitiation on d^expiation ”; although a 
 person cannot be a monnment, still, by the will of God cet in¬ 
 strument demeure comme nn monnment destine a montrer sa 
 justice ”. Holtzmann has: Shhnmal oder Slihnmittel ”. 
 
 Summary of Modern Exegesis 
 
 This historical survey clearly illustrates the confusion which 
 modern exegesis has made of St. PanFs concept. With compara¬ 
 tively few exceptions modern authors admit that in Rom. in, 25 
 the term has direct reference to the sacrifice of Christ, but they 
 widely differ as to the exact literal meaning of the word. Five 
 interpretations lead: 
 
 1. Most commentators hold that Christ is the reality, the ful¬ 
 filment, the antitype of the iXaaTrjpLov in the Holy of Holies. 
 Whether St. Paul used the word as substantive or adjective 
 is also disputed. The majority are of opinion that he used it 
 as a noun. Gifford claims it was constantly used in biblical 
 Greek as a substantive in the definite concrete sense, ^ place or 
 instrument of atonement ’ ”. Olshausen,^^® Macknight,^"*^ and 
 others believe St. Paul used it as an adjective and that iiriOeya 
 must be supplied. 
 
 Paul, 20!). Op. cit., 96. 
 
 i^'Comm. on Rom., 118-119. cit., 540. 
 
 “^Grammar of Greek N. T., 154. Op. cit., 72. 
 
 Tlieolo^yie d. N. T., 309. 
 
 Ep. aux Rom., 70. 
 
 ^'njelirbucli d. neutest. Tlieologie, 11, 111. 
 
24 
 
 2. A few moderns claim that l\aar7]pLov designates Christ in 
 His sacrifice as the expiator or propitiator for sin. 
 
 3. A third group define the Pauline word as the expiatory or 
 propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, But they disagree concerning St. 
 Paul’s use of it. Many believe he employed it as a noun, being 
 in form the neuter of the adjective. Others, such as Luthardt,^'*® 
 Barnes,^^® Whedon,^^® George Clark,^®^ Ford,^®^ Fritzsche,^^^ etc., 
 assert just as firmly that the Apostle used it as an adjective and 
 that it demands either Ovfjui or Upelov as supplement. 
 
 4. A few scholars adopt the abstract meaning expiation or 
 propitiation. 
 
 5. Later exegetes defend the meaning: Christ in His sacrifice 
 became the means or memorial of expiation or propitiation. 
 
 Catholic theologians teadh that the effects of Christ’s sacrifice 
 are redemption and justification, implying forgiveness and a com¬ 
 plete blotting out of sin with an interior sanctification of the soul. 
 Protestants would have it a mere external cloaking of sins which 
 still remain; a mere imputation to the sinner of God’s or Christ’s 
 justice, and they seek in Eom. iii, 25 a basis for their arguments. 
 Thus, as Briggs says in reference to the sacrifice of Christ in 
 this important verse, ‘^‘^the sins of his people are covered by the 
 enduring perpetual blood of his sin-offering. Sins are ^ covered 
 once for all and forever ’ Protestants also place special em¬ 
 phasis upon Sta Trto-Tew?: by the sacrifice of Christ, Divine 
 Justice no more than opened for mankind a new way of justifi¬ 
 cation leading to confidence in God’s mercy, which engenders 
 certainty of salvation. This confidence alone justifies and excludes 
 the necessity of good works. So Bleibtreu writes: Fide! Das 
 ist seine Voraussetzung. Hon fide et operibus! Das ist seine 
 Behauptung. Ergo sola fide! Das ist seine Schlussfolgerung. 
 Hicht der Glaube, sondern die Alleinigkeit des Glaubens bildet 
 den Grundgedanken in der Heilslehre des Eornerbriefes 
 
 Despite this confusion, our review of modern exegesis has fur¬ 
 nished valuable information. It is seen how moderns choose now 
 the element expiation, now propitiation, and sometimes both; and 
 quite naturally the question arises whether the term does not 
 
 Briefe an d. Thess., Gal., Kor., und Rom., 339. 
 
 Notes on Rom., 98. Pauli ad Rom. Ep., I, 193. 
 
 Comm, on N. T., Ill, 316. “^Op. cit., 148. 
 
 ^®^Rom. and Cor., 58. ^®®Op. cit., 550. 
 
 152 Comm, on Rom., 95. 
 
25 
 
 contain more than one element. Again it has been noticed that 
 not a few scholars referred to the primary, literal meaning of 
 IXaarrjpiov as a place of expiation or propitiation; this raises a sec¬ 
 ond question: Is this the original meaning, or is IXaar^pLov a gen¬ 
 eral term for a means of expiation or propitiation? 
 
 Our attention was also drawn to the several sources whence 
 modern commentators derive their meaning. Many go to the 0. T. 
 only; others base their arguments on profane Greek literature; 
 still others have recourse to the writings of the patristic age. 
 Wherefore it becomes necessary to take up all these sources sepa¬ 
 rately and, by a careful and complete study of each, to find a 
 solution for this all important word. 
 
 It is an incontestable fact, recognized more every day by modern' 
 scholars, that the patristic age is the important period for ■ the 
 solution of scriptural difficulties. Hence the necessity of consulting 
 the writings of these eminent expounders of Christian doctrine in 
 the present discussion. These writers will undoubtedly throw 
 much light on the exegetical history of Eom. in, 25, since they 
 give us the earliest explanation. We, therefore, submit the works 
 of both the Greek and Latin Fathers to thorough examination in 
 order to ascertain their views on a word which has proved such a 
 baffling problem to modern exegetes. 
 
 2. IN THE GREEK FATHERS 
 
 Here already it must be stated that the interpretation of 
 IXaar^pLov in Greek patristic literature constitutes a remarkably 
 uniform contrast to modern exegesis. Modern commentators, with 
 exceptions of course, start out with the supposition that the term 
 is best explained through the context in which it is found, instead 
 of first seeking the correct meaning of the word and then testing 
 whether this meaning is in conformity with the context. The 
 Fathers, on the contrary, first establish the source and then inter¬ 
 pret Rom. Ill, 25 accordingly. They seek the origin of the word 
 in the 0. T. and their fundamental idea is that the 0. T. use of 
 IXaar^pLov describes it as a place where God was present to dis¬ 
 tribute His mercy. Christ is the real fulfilment of His type in 
 the Holy of Holies. In other words, the essential signification for 
 the Greek Fathers is locality. To grasp the importance of this 
 fact and to let their exegesis of Rom. in, 25’ appear in its proper 
 light, it will be useful to give a few general illustrations of the 
 trend of thought among Greek patristic writers. 
 
26 
 
 Athanasius^ arguing against the Arians, constructs the fol¬ 
 lowing dilemma. When the Israelites were commanded to go up 
 to Jerusalem to adore in the temple, where the ark was and above 
 
 it the lXacTTr]piov — cv6a r; kl/Swtos Kal virepdvM TavTrj<; ... to iXacTTTjpLOVy 
 
 was their act of adoration worthy of praise or blame? If the 
 latter, why were those punished who neglected this duty? And if 
 their conduct was praisew^orthy, as the Arians admit it was, why 
 do they refuse to adore the Lord in His flesh as existing in a 
 temple —tov K^vptov iv uapKi, (i)? Iv mw dvra, TrpoaKvvetv, since the 
 type ceased with the coming of the reality— IkBovctt)^ Se Trj<; dXrjOela'?, 
 Triiravrai Xolttov 6 totto??^®® The contrast is signiflcaiit. The 
 IXao-Tijpiov, guarded by the cherubim, designated the special locality 
 in the temple of the 0. T. where the Israelites were commanded 
 to adore. This type was supplanted by Christ the reality. His 
 flesh was the temple containing the H. T. iXacjT^piov, the real place 
 of adoration. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria, expounding Jn. vii^ 14, gives more inter¬ 
 esting information. He begins by stating that Cod dwells every¬ 
 where. We believe, however, that He more emphatically dwells 
 in holy places and very reasonably may we infer that the divine 
 nature is revealed to us in places especially sacred —rfj Bela cfivaei 
 oLKovcTTov r^plv kv lepols pLaXicTTa tottois kueaBai Immediately he adds: 
 
 But what was described to the Jews in type and figure, that 
 Christ now changes into reality —oVep 8e TvdXiv kv tvttm Kal crxta rot? 
 dvcDTepti) Kareypa^ero, rovro vvv ci? dX^Beiav pieracTKevd^eL He 
 
 then explains: God ordered Moses to place the propitiatory over 
 the ark and there He would instruct and speak to him. The pro¬ 
 pitiatory was, then, the peculiarly sacred spot where the divine 
 manifestation resided. Therefore, he continues, when St. John 
 records Christ’s going up into the temple to teach the people, he 
 means to say that Christ as God went up into the hallowed place 
 consecrated to God —kv toL lepols tc Kal ai/o^Ket/xeVot? TM TOTTOL'i 
 TrapeXBkov w? His presence as God was not perceived by 
 
 the Jews just as the presence of God OA^er the propitiatory Avas 
 imperceptible. With us the type has become realized—6 tov 
 
 TrpdypaTO^; tutto? dXr)B^i]<i k<f)^ rjpLwv, because Christ Himself as iXaariqpiov 
 is now the particular spot sanctifying the temple just as the 0. T. 
 IXaar^pLov was the one that sanctified the temple. And Christ, 
 although dwelling among the JeAvs in His flesh, noAv speaks to 
 
 tr.6 mpg, 26, 1080-1081, Ep. ad Adelphiiim. 
 
 MPG, 73, 653. 
 
27 
 
 them as once God did from the propitiatory —warrep odv Ik tov 
 I kacTTTjpLov iraXai 6 ©eoGd®® According to this explanation the 0. T. 
 IXadT^ptov was the particular place where God manifested Himself 
 and communicated His orders to Moses. Christ now, being the 
 antitype, is the real place where God manifests Himself to men and 
 communicates with them. 
 
 Hilus, in Peristeria iv, where w^e find a short treatise on prayer, 
 writes that any place is suitable for praver, for it is not so much 
 the place as the sentiments of the one praying that make the 
 prayer. It was of no benefit, he says, for the Jews to approach 
 even to the most impenetrable part of the temple and there, de¬ 
 voutly surrounding the propitiatory —TreptTrTvcrcTopievoi o-TrouSat'w? to 
 IXao-TypLov —to pray, because God would not hear their prayers since 
 their hands were full of blood (Is. i, 15).^^® Hilus evidently refers 
 to the IXacTTypLov in the Holy of Holies as the place KaP i^oxyy 
 where the Jews might expect to be heard. 
 
 In Quaest. in Levit., Theodoket of Cyrus quotes Lev. xvi, 2 
 as evidence that God manifested His own peculiar presence in the 
 propitiatory —kv tm iXacrrrjp'ni) Tr]V oiKeiav em^dvetav 6 AecTTrorry? eTrotetro 
 Commenting on Ps. cxxxi, 8 he informs us that tnrough 
 the propitiatory the High Priest obtained knowledge of the divine 
 presence— eKelvov l^lXaaryjpLov ] TM dpytepet pLrjvvpjaTa riva Tij<; 
 
 i7n(f>aveta^ eytVero.^®^ Quoting from Is. Lxvi, 1, he adds that God 
 does not dwell in temples made by hands but that heaven is His 
 throne and the earth His footstool. “What is this house which 
 you will build to me? and what is this place of my rest? 
 
 These few examples show that, in the mind of the Greek Fathers, 
 the 0. T. IXaarrjpLov was the place of adoration, prayer, and divine 
 manifestation. As we shall see they base their interpretation of 
 IXaaTTjpiov in Eom. iii, 25 upon this use of the term in the 0. T. 
 and for them the word was self explanatory. 
 
 The most detailed exposition of Eom. in, 25 is given by Origex' 
 in his commentary on the epistle to the Eomans, of which we have 
 only the Latin recension by Eufinus. 
 
 Origen^s first step is to find the source, and he believes St. Paul 
 adopted the word from the 0. T. This is evident from the fol¬ 
 lowing : “ Et videtur propitiatorium hoc, de quo scriptum est in 
 Exodo, ad nullum nisi ad Salvatorem Dominum retulisse cum 
 
 ^'«0p. cit., 656. 80, 1905. 
 
 icuMPO, 79, 829. cit., 1908. 
 
 ’^oMPG, 80, 328. 
 
28 
 
 dicit, quia hunc posuit ^ Deus propitiatorium per fidem ^ In 
 
 his commentary on St. John’s gospel Origen speaks of Christ as 
 our advocate., tAatr/xd?, and rd IXaaTTjpLov. As proof for the first two 
 appellations he cites I Jn. ii^ 1-2, and for the third, Eom. 25. 
 To the latter quotation he adds the remark that the golden pro¬ 
 pitiatory in the Holy of Holies was a shadow of the Pauline 
 
 IXacTT^pLOV — ov IXaarrjpLov et? to, ca^rara Kal 'Ayta tmv dytwv <TKia tis' 
 drdyyave rd \pv(TOvv IXaar^pLov.^^'^ 
 
 Having now established the foundation for the Pauline term he 
 proceeds to determine more precisely its full meaning. Since the 
 Apostle writes that Christ was proposed as tAao-r^ptov through faith 
 in His blood, it is necessary to investigate “ quae sit propitiatio 
 quae per sanguinem fiat ”, so that we can understand quomodo 
 etiam per sanguinem Jesu propitiatio facta sit”. Origen returns 
 to the sacrificial ritual of the Mosaic law and proves from Ps. cix, 
 4 and Plebr. v that in the H. T. Christ Himself is the priest who 
 offers the sacrifice; and from Jn. i, 29 that He is also the Lamb 
 that is slain. Hence he calls Christ propitiatorium, et pontificem, 
 et hostiam quae offertur pro populo ”. As victim Christ effected 
 expiation profusione sanguinis sui ” and this effect consisted in 
 eo quod dat remissionem praecedentium delictorum Acccord- 
 ing to these quotations Christ by His sacrifice made expiation and 
 procured propitiation. 
 
 That the notion of sacrifice flows into the elements of expiation 
 and propitiation, appears distinctly from Origen’s homily 24 In 
 Numeros. As long as sin existed it required victims for sin, and 
 the sacrifice thereof was intended ad reconciliandum hominibus 
 Deum ”. If sin had not entered the world Christ would not neces¬ 
 sarily have had to become man and the Lamb of God. Peccati 
 autem necessitas propitiationem requirit”; but ^^propitiatio non 
 fit nisi per hostiam” and therefore ^Aecessarium fuit provider! 
 hostiam pro peccato”. Christ was this one victim and such was 
 the cleansing power of His sacrifice ut una sola sufficeret pro 
 totius mundi salute Thus we learn that propitiatio ” in¬ 
 
 volves sacrifice, hostia ” points out the expiatory element, while 
 reconciliatio ” and salus ” describe the propitiatory element. 
 
 To prevent anyone thinking that this doctrine is a fond inven¬ 
 tion of St. Paul’s, Origen refers also to I Jn. ii^ 1-2. To him St. 
 
 MPG, 14, 947. MPG, 14, 950. 
 
 MPG, 14, 89. 
 
 MPG, 12, 757-758. Cf. 12, 454 and 754. 
 
29 
 
 John seems to enhance the atonement mystery by declaring that 
 Christ is advocate and IXacrfio^ not only for the sins of the faithful 
 but also for those of the whole world. Both apostles speak of 
 Christ in one and the same sense. Therefore^ he concludes^ it 
 matters little which way IXacrT^piov is taken, sive propitiator 
 sive ^ propitiatorium sive ‘ propitiatio sive etiam ^ exoratio ^ . . . , 
 cum apud Graecos uno semper eodemque sermone proferatur 
 He adds a curious remark: ^^Hisi forte videatur quibusdam ^pro¬ 
 pitiatio ^ ipsa ejus divina substantia; ^propitiator^ vero, cum dis- 
 pensationes in hominibus explet, intelligi Which would mean 
 that propitiatio refers to the divine nature in Christ and pro- 
 piator ” to His human nature. 
 
 Our conclusion from Origen must be this. The Pauline term' 
 expresses the reality of what the symbol in the Holy of Holies 
 typified. The notion of sacrifice enters intimately into Origen's 
 exegesis. His remark that the word was employed by the Greeks 
 with various meanings is an indication that Origen was quite 
 familiar with a situation v^hich is a difficult problem to us. 
 
 From his exposition of Ps. lxxix, 3-4 wherein Kom. in, 25 is 
 quoted, it is evident that, to Eusebius of Caesarea also, IkaaTypLov 
 represented the reality of what was prefigured by the 0. T. symbol. 
 He explains the propitiatory in the Holy of Holies as an image 
 and exemplar — elKova kuI tvttov —of Him whom Ezechiel saw in a 
 vision (Ez. i), namely, the Yerbum Dei and adds as evidence the 
 Pauline quotation of Eom. iii, 25}^^ 
 
 In book VIII of the Demonstratio Evangelica, Eusebius shows 
 how the prophecy given to Daniel (ix,' 27) was fulfiled with the 
 advent of Christ. The world stood in need of a living and a real 
 
 iXacrpLO^ — SelcrOai irav to rdov avSpMrrroiv yero? IXacrpiov Kal 
 
 aXrjOivov. The sacrifices of the 0. T. were ineffective because they 
 could not completely remove sin. However they served as types 
 of what was to come. Especially was the Mosaic iXadT^piov a 
 type —TVTTOV c<f)epe to irapa Mcjaei KaTacrKevaaOev iXaaTypLOVy and its 
 antitype was no other than our Saviour and Lord—o^ro? 8e ^v 6 
 '^(OTgp Kal Kiipto? r)ixMv, who, ill the words of St. John (i, 29), is 
 the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world 
 
 Again the 0. T. type offers the foundation for Eusebius’s inter¬ 
 pretation. Christ is its antitype, i. e., the place where, by His 
 
 14, 051. 
 MPG, 23, 950. 
 i«»MPG, 22, 001. 
 
30 
 
 sacrifice as Lamb, He expiates all sins and propitiates God. Jnst 
 as clear is the distinction between tAao-fto? and iXaar'qpiov. As 
 IXafTT^pLov Christ is the true place; as tAao-/xo9 His sacrifice is the 
 means of procuring a real and living expiation and propitiation 
 for the world. 
 
 Basil, the Great, expounding Ps. xlvtii, 8, wmrns against seek¬ 
 ing a brother as redeemer, or any mere man instead of some one 
 who surpasses our nature; the reason being precisely because all 
 men are sinners. That someone is none other than ‘^Hhe God- 
 man Jesus Christ who needs no l^iXaa-pM, nor is His soul to be re¬ 
 deemed^’. Basil next describes how Christ wrought our redemp¬ 
 tion : not by ransom—/xera Avrpwv, neither by gifts—^/xem S^pcov^ but 
 by His own blood— eV rw iavrov aipxiTL. As evidence for his state¬ 
 ments Basil quotes Eom. iii, 25, and concludes by saying that 
 Christ could redeem us since he needs no cAao-go? but is Himself 
 IXacTT^piov—ov yap tAacr/xov Selrai dAA’ avro? eanv IXaarypiov.^^^ 
 
 According to Basil Christ as God-man could expiate the sins of 
 all men and redeem them. It clearly appears from the quotations 
 that Basil distinguishes between i^lXacrpa, lXaap6<i^ and tAao-r^pior; 
 the former two pointing to the means employed, i. e., the sacrifice 
 of Christ, while the latter points directly to Him. The contrast 
 of IXaapuo^ to iXaariqpiov, together wfith the local meaning of 
 iXao-T^pLov, demands the contextual sense that Christ by means of 
 His sacrifice became the place of expiation and propitiation. 
 
 Gregory of Hyssa in a very expressive application avers that 
 by considering Christ as IXaaT^piov in His blood — IXaar^piov Iv tm 
 ISlm atpuaTL 6 Xpto’TO's voov/xevo?, we are taught that each and every 
 one becomes a IXacrTrjpiov himself — avrov cKaarov yeveaOai eavTO) 
 IXaar^piov — through cleansing the soul by death-like mortifica¬ 
 tion Previously he enumerates more than 25 titles indicating 
 the office, power, and qualities of Christ. Among them we find: 
 Christ The Eedemption, High Priest, Paschal Lamb, and IXaar^piov 
 Again, in De Vita Moysis, when dealing with the sig¬ 
 nification of the propitiatory in the Holy of Holies, Gregory says 
 oddly enough that ^Hts meaning needs no explanation since St. 
 Paul clearly defined it when he wrote; Whom God hath proposed 
 as IXacTTrjpiov of our souls— 6v TTpoiOero 6 ©eo? IXaaTrjpiov tmv i/'vywv 
 
 t ~ 173 
 
 rjpuiiv . 
 
 29, 440-441. 
 
 MPG, 46, 264, De Perfecta Christ. Forma. 
 
 MPG, 46, 253. MPG, 46. 384. 
 
31 
 
 The meaning, then, of IXao-T^piov must have been perefctly clear 
 to Gregory and his readers. In the first quotation it is interesting 
 to observe that we can become a Ikaar^pLov by acts of penance and 
 mortification. These acts are the means, and the only possible 
 idea expressed by IXaa-r^pLov is that of locality; namely, we are the 
 place where, by means of penance and mortification, expiation and 
 propitiation are offered. Then Christ as IXaaT^ptov of souls means 
 that He is the sanctuary, the realization of the 0. T. type, whinn 
 souls find expiation and propitiation. While the type was sprinkled 
 with blood in order to procure expiation and propitiation, Christ 
 effected the same for us by His own blood. Gregory’s curious 
 remark concerning the self-evident meaning of the 0. T. iXaa-TijpLov, 
 gives the important and direct information that St. Paul applied, 
 the term to Christ with that same fundamental meaning which it 
 has in 0. T. usage. 
 
 What is doubtless a copy of Basil’s interpretation of the Pauline 
 word as found in his commentary on Ps. xlviii, 8, is given by 
 Didymus the Blind in his exposition of the same psalm.But 
 Didymus also presents us with his own exegesis in his commentary 
 on Ps. cxxix, 4. Christ the Saviour, expiating and dissolving 
 sins — 6 IXadKopevo^^ Kal ra? afxaprla^ '^oirr^p, is OUr lAaa/xo?. 
 
 Since all men have sinned, all also need the tAacr/xd? of Christ by 
 which salvation is obtained— -n-apa aov iXaapiov IXaaKopLevov 
 TTy? TrdvToiv eveKa (T(DT7]pLa<? ”. To prove that Christ expiated the sins 
 of all and redeemed all, thus effecting propitiation, Didymus quotes 
 I Jn. ii^ 1-2 and Eom. iii, 23-25.^^® 
 
 As employed by Epiphanius, IXac-T^piov retains its fundamental 
 meaning of locality as well as the double idea of expiation and 
 propitiation. In Ancoratus lxv he discusses the advent of the 
 Saviour into the world. Citing the words of St. Paid (Eom. viii, 
 3 and I Cor. i, 30) he portrays the coming of Christ in the like¬ 
 ness of sinful flesh in order to redeem us from servitude, cor¬ 
 ruption, and death; Christ has become justice, sanctification, and 
 redemption. The last three words Epiphanius refers to the blot¬ 
 ting out of sin, to our justification and our deliverance by the 
 blood of Christ, and then he adds: IXacrTripiov Ka^dptreco? K6crp.ov. 
 KaraXXay^]^ aTrdvTwv iv ovpavM Kal [ctti] Again we see the 
 
 antithesis to the 0. T. IXanT^pLov. The latter served as the special 
 
 39, 1384-1385. 
 
 ”®MPG, 30, 1585-]588. 
 
 i’«MPG, 43, 133. Cf. 42, 477, Adv. Baer., ITT, 1. 
 
32 
 
 place of expiation and propitiation for the Israelites only; Christ, 
 the reality, is in His sacrifice the place of expiation for the world 
 (KaOdpaeo)^ Koafiov) and the place of propitiation for all peoples 
 (KaraAAay'^? diravTiov). The element of sacrifice is essentially con¬ 
 tained in this notion^ hecanse it is only through the shedding of 
 His blood that Christ became the H. T. iXaar^pLov. 
 
 The exegesis of Eom. iii, 25 by John- Chrysostom, the greatest 
 commentator of St. Paul, is brief but pointed. He calls attention 
 to this that the Apostle has lXa(jTr}piov Iv rw avrov alpbaTL, thus re¬ 
 calling to mind the 0. T. sheep and oxen offered in sacrifice for 
 sin. If their blood-shedding served in a manner to free from sin, 
 he writes, how much more valuable must be the blood of Christ. 
 He then points out the use of dTroAvr/owcrt? by iSt. Paul in pre¬ 
 ference to Xvrpo)aL<;, which shows that “our redemption was not 
 merely a delivery from sin but a real buying back, the ransom 
 being the sacrificial death of Christ For this reason, he adds, 
 the Apostle calls Christ IXao-TTjpLov, arguing that “ if the type 
 (ruVo?) had such expiatory and propitiatory power, the reality 
 (dX^6aa) must have by far greater By the term tvtto^ Chry¬ 
 
 sostom most probably aims at the 0. T. iXacrr^piov as the founda¬ 
 tion of the Pauline word. Christ in His own blood is the reality 
 of this type and the fulfilment of the symbolic animal sacrifices 
 of the 0. T.^^« 
 
 Hesychius, priest and monk of Jerusalem, quotes Eom. iii, 25 
 in his exposition of Lev. xvi, 2. He finds a figure of Christ in 
 all that concerns the 0. T. propitiatory. Christ is the “ verum 
 et intelligibile propitiatorium, utpote qui ipse nobis peccatorum 
 propitiationem praestat His flesh served as the veil of His 
 divinity just as the Holy of Holies was shielded by a veil—velamen 
 enim Christus habet carnem, tegumentum divinitatis suae, quem- 
 admodum et hoc quod erat sensibile velamen tegumentum Sanctis 
 sanctorum fuit.^^^ Expounding v. 14 he writes that Christ offered 
 His sacrifice for the remission of sins. Christ suffered for our 
 propitiation and enlightenment and therefore the very passion 
 
 AIPG, 60, 444. 
 
 Chrysostom offers a striking parallel in homily 2, Sermo de Cruce et 
 Latrone (MPG, 49, 408). He states that the cross was an altar ( dvaiaarr}- 
 piov 6 cTavpos). If the cross was an altar, i. e., the place of offering 
 Christ’s sacrifice, then the Pauline Vkaar'qpLov, being so inseparably con¬ 
 nected with the sacrifice of Christ, would seem to find its best interpretation 
 as a place of expiation and propitiation. 
 
 MPG, 93, 983-984. 
 
33 
 
 is called propitiatorium — ad propitiationem enim nostram, 
 simulque illuminationem, passio salutaris per acta est: unde 
 ipsa passio dicitur propitiatoriumd®*^ Hesychius sees in the 
 Pauline term an expression of reality in contrast to the 0. T. 
 symbol. This reality is Christ, who is both God and man, by 
 whose sacrifice expiation and propitiation were wrought. Pro- 
 pitiatio’^ is to Hesychius the expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice 
 of Christ as means of redemption; propitiatorium is Christ 
 Himself, as place through which propitiatio proceeds. In call¬ 
 ing the passion “ propitiatorium Hesychius would seem to un¬ 
 derstand this figuratively since, if taken out of its context, the 
 more natural sense would behold in the passion the means of ex¬ 
 piation and propitiation. 
 
 Cykil of Alexandria quotes and explains the Pauline term a 
 number of times. In the exposition of the epistle to the Eomans 
 he thus comments on v. 25: Christ, by offering His own blood 
 as ransom for the life of all— arrdvTwv dvTaXXayfMi TO iSiov 
 aifxa, saved all for heaven— aeaoiKe r^v VTT^ ovpavov^ and rendered His 
 Father propitious and merciful The objects of IXaaT^pLov are 
 here the sacrificial expiation of sin by the blood of Christ and the 
 reconciliation of mankind with God. 
 
 Deeper knowledge of CyriPs exegesis is gleaned from the ix 
 book, De Adoratione in Spiritu et Yeritate. In a dialogue with 
 Palladius, Cyril explains the symbolism of the ark and the 
 propitiatory; both are types of Christ. Taken literally the latter 
 w^as a golden plate placed over the ark of the covenant. Regarded 
 figuratively it represents Him who became man for us; as evidence 
 Cyril quotes I Jn. ii^ 1-2 and Rom. iii, 25. He continues: “ For 
 through Christ we obtain tAacr/xo? — St avrov yap IXacrpio?, and so 
 Christ Aiiro? oiv dpa to IXaaTrjpiov The distinction drawn between 
 IXaapA^ and IXaarrjpLov, together with the reference to the 0. T. 
 suggests that Christ as IXoxrrrjptov is the place where IXacrpA^ is given. 
 
 Palladius, however, craves more information and Cyril again 
 affirms that ark and propitiatory were types of Christ, quoting 
 once more I Jn. 1-2 and stating that in Rom. in, 25 St. Paul 
 refers to Christ as IXaariqpLov Bia ttiVtcw?. Cyril bases his explana¬ 
 tion on the statement in Ex. xxv, 22 that God would speak to 
 Moses from over the propitiatory from the midst of the two 
 cherubim. Christ is to lXaa-Tt]pLov placed on high —to IXaa-Trjpiov, 
 
 MPG, 93, 995. 
 3 
 
 74, 780. 
 
 ““MPG, GS, 600. 
 
34 
 
 TO vij/ov KELfievov, and is guarded by the heavenly powers, signifying 
 that the Son is known to ns not only as man but also as God and 
 the Lord of all —ov yap Ik plovmv ■^plv rwv Kcvcoaews t/dottwv yvwpijito? 
 6 Yto?, aXXa Kol (hv lari @eo? /cm tmv oXinv At the 
 
 IXaaTTjptov the adoration proper to God alone was offered; therefore 
 the place above the cherubim makes manifest to us pre-eminently 
 the divine nature— 6 vnepavco rcov Xepoo/?tjU, totto?, Km al(j6r]T^<i . . . 
 piovovov)(l Ty]v Oeiav -^plv KaTaSrjXoL cfivciv 
 
 In book X Cyril compares Christ to the he-goat sacrificed on the 
 Atonement day. This entire ceremony, he says, found its fulfil¬ 
 ment in Christ who was without sin, bore our sins, and died for 
 us on the cross. Christ ivas made for us not only tAao-/^o? but 
 also IXuarypLov—yeyove yap yplv lXaapi6<i re Kal IXaaTijpiov, 6 Xpicrro?. 
 In His blood there is granted salvation and life to the world— t^v 
 T ov KocrpLov croiTrjplav Kal and a most perfect cleansing—reAeo- 
 Tarrjv . . . ri/v airoKaBapatv — to all, Jews as wjbII as Gentiles 
 
 In the same book Cyril explains to Palladius the symbolism of 
 the voice that spoke to Moses from over the propitiatory. This 
 also is applicable to Christ, “ to aXrjOh iXaar^pLov, who said that 
 the words which He spoke were not His but those of His Father 
 who sent Him (Jn. vi, 64). And, as the Scriptures testify. He 
 is also tXaarypLov . . . virep tmv ap^apriMv ypiwv Here again we 
 
 notice that Cyril also identifies Christ as IXoaT^piov with His Father. 
 Just as the Father manifested Himself to Moses and spoke to him 
 from over the propitiatory so now in Christ as IXaarr^pLov is the 
 divinity manifested. 
 
 In Cyriks comment on Hab. iii, 2 we are told that, according 
 to St. Paul, Christ is IXacrri^pLov Sia Trjs Triareo)^ and^ as such He 
 freed us from every charge, rendered His Father propitious and 
 easy of access’b With the advent of Christ, Cyril proceeds, the 
 obscure types and figures of the 0. T. became realized. Thus the 
 typical propitiatory had its reality in Christ.^®® Then follows the 
 emphatic remark that although Christ was made flesh and set 
 forth by the Father as tXaa-TT^pLov, yet He ceased not to be what 
 He was, namely, God — dAA’ el Kal yiyove crdp^, Kal reOeiTai Trapa tov 
 HaTpd? IXacTT^piov, ovk aTTO^ef^XrjKev direp rjv, TovreaTi, to eivai Geo? 
 
 The cherubim still surround to IXauT^piov and contemplate it 
 unceasingly After these preliminaries Cyril explains the words 
 of the prophet thus: Thou wilt be known, 0 Lord, from the 
 
 MPG, 68, 620. 
 AIPG, 68, 688. 
 
 ““AIPG, 68, 717. 
 ^^^MPG, 71, 897. 
 
35 
 
 type and figure in the Holy of Holies. When made similar to ns 
 in the flesh Thou hast become the IXacrr^pLov. Thou wilt stand in 
 the midst of the two animals, i. e., the two cherubim guarding the 
 propitiatory and Thy name will be to TAao-r^ptov 
 
 To summarize Cyril’s exegesis: God, sin and man are always 
 the objects of iXauT^pLov. The notion of sacrifice enters intimately 
 into the word and Cyril clearly distinguishes tAacr/xos from IXacrr^piov. 
 In Christ as IXao-T^pLov the divine presence is manifested just as it 
 was made manifest above the 0. T. symbolic place. Christ’s pia- 
 cular sacrifice was the tAao-^o?, the means of redemption for all 
 people. Several times Cyril calls Christ IXaur^pLov Sta (ry^) Tricrrew? 
 and quotes no more of Rom. iii, 25.^®® This certainly must have 
 been done intentionally by him with a definite end in view. 
 Mathis has conclusively proven that the general function of 
 TTto-Tt? in the Pauline epistles is that of reality in contrast to mere 
 appearance. This conclusion may well be applied to Cyril’s quo¬ 
 tations. By continually appending 8ta riy? Trio-rew? to IXaaTypiov 
 Cyril would prove that the Pauline use of the word expresses the 
 reality as against the 0. T. mere appearance. 
 
 Theodoret of Cyrus offers the interpretation with wdiich we are 
 already familiar. In Rom. iii, 25 St. Paul teaches that Christ 
 the Lord is the real iXaarypLOV — to aXyOiVOv iXaurypiov 6 AecrTTory^ 
 icTTL l^puTTO'i of this the 0. T. iXaarypLOV bore the type— to TraXatov 
 TovTov Tov TVTTov cTcXypov.^^^ Again, Rom. Ill, 25 occurs in Theo¬ 
 dor et’s commentary on Ez. xliii, 10-15. The two IXac-Typua which 
 the prophet saw in his vision of the new temple, the one being 
 larger than the other, refer to the IXaa-TypLov of the 0. and H. T. 
 Hence, since the 0. T. was a type of the Hew, the IXaaTypiov of the 
 former was also a type of the latter— rv7ro<; yap ... to IXaurypiov 
 ixeivo TOV ypieTepov iXacTypiov, and this is Christ —XptCTO? l(JTL TO 
 ypieTepov IXaaTypiov. 
 
 The conclusion is obvious. Christ is the reality of what was 
 symbolized by the 0. T. place where expiation and propitiation 
 were procured by sacrifice. 
 
 CosMAS Indicopleustas, in Topographia v, uses the Pauline word 
 in support of his argument that Christ in His incarnation became 
 the H. T. reality in contrast to the type in the Holy of Holies— 
 
 ^«"Op. cit., 900. 
 
 also 71, 905 and 90<S 
 
 ^«The Pauline ni2Ti:S-Tn02TA2:i2:, Washington, 1920. 
 
 82, 84. "“'AIPG, 81, 1232. 
 
36 
 
 TVTTO? Sk 7]v TO IXaaT^pLOV tov AecTTTOTOv Xpiarou Kara aapKa.^^^ Else¬ 
 where Cosmas states that the 0. T. symbol foreshadowed the office 
 of the Lord Christ— rd^iv CTre^ov tov Aiar-orov XptaTov.^^^ Again 
 we see that Christ the reality replaced the 0. T. type. As God was 
 present and made Himself manifest in the type, so is He also 
 present and becomes manifest in the incarnation of Christ, who 
 is the real place of expiation and propitiation. 
 
 In the exposition of Eom. 25 JoHisr of Damascus, the last 
 Greek writer whom we shall quote, proclaims the 0. T. iXauT^piov 
 the type—6 rjv, iKelvo TO lXa<TTT]pLov and the blood by which 
 
 the people were sanctified a symbol of Christ’s blood— tov aLp.aTo<5 
 avTov avpLjSovXov iKelvo to aipixi to dytd^ov tov Xa6v^^‘^ The passage 
 explains itself. Christ is the reality in contrast to the 0. T. type. 
 His blood made expiation for us and sanctified us. 
 
 Summary of the Greeh Patristic Literature 
 
 The results of our inquiry among the Greek Fathers are briefly 
 these: 
 
 1) Their exegesis for the Pauline term has its roots in the 0. T. 
 
 a) Jesus Christ as IXadrypiov is the reality of the type in the 
 Holy of Holies. 
 
 b) Jesus Christ is the fulfilment of the typical sacrifices of 
 the 0. T. 
 
 2) The sacrifice of Christ is treated by the Fathers quite gen¬ 
 erally as wholly inseparable from the term IXaarypiov. Both are 
 intimately related. 
 
 3) The fundamental content of the term is locality, i. e., the 
 special place within the Holy of Holies, and of this Christ is the 
 reality. Moreover it contains essentially the ideas of 
 
 a) expiation, with the removal of sin for its object; 
 
 b) propitiation, including as terminus ad quern man who 
 was redeemed, as terminus a quo God who was reconciled; 
 
 c) manifestation of divinity. 
 
 4) The more precise meaning, then, is this: 
 
 a) as the 0. T. IXacrrypLov was the particular place wffiere ex¬ 
 piation and propitiation were obtained for the Israelites 
 by the sprinkling of blood upon the propitiatory, so Christ 
 by His self-sacrifice and in His own blood became local¬ 
 ized expiation and propitiation for all men; 
 
 88, 209; cf. 208. MPG, 88, 245. ^»^MPG, 95, 465. 
 
37 
 
 b) as the 0. T. iXaarrjpiov was the centre where the divine 
 presence manifested itself, so Christ is the place where in 
 His divine person the presence of the G-odhead is mani¬ 
 fested. 
 
 5) ‘lAacrr^ptov is quite distinct from tAao-/xo?. AVhile the latter 
 indicates the means of expiation and propitiation, the former has 
 reference to locality. In the sanctuary of Christ’s own person as 
 lXa<TT^ptov, cAaa/xos was achieved through the sacrifice in His own 
 blood. Thus all the 0. T. elements combined find their fulfilment 
 in Christ the reality. 
 
 In view of the confusion in modern exegesis of Rom. iii, 25, 
 the unanimous consistency of Greek patristic interpretation is 
 indeed remarkable. And, in determining the source and definite ■ 
 signification of the Pauline term, such uniformity is a weighty 
 argument which may not be ignored. 
 
 3. IN THE LATIN FATHERS 
 
 In Latin patristic literature Rom. iii, 25 occurs but rarely, nor 
 do the Fathers who cite the verse furnish us with such exhaustive 
 and complete material as is the case with the Greeks. 
 
 Hilary of Poitiers adverts to the Pauline term in his com¬ 
 mentary on Ps. LXiv^ 4-5. The human race, under the yoke of 
 philosophical errors, cried to God for enlightenment, knowing that 
 God must be placated for past sins and crimes of impiety through 
 Christ—scientes tandem vetera delicta sua et antiquae impietatis 
 crimina Deo propitianda esse per Christum”. This light they 
 obtained through St. Paul and St. John. From the former, when 
 he says: Quern proposuit Deus placationem per fidem in suo 
 sanguine ”; from the latter, when he writes of Christ: Ipse est 
 placatio pro peccatis nostris ”. Then Hilary puts the question: 
 
 Qui tandem propitiationis effectus est ” ? He answers by quoting 
 V. 5: Beatus quern elegisti et assumpsisti, ut inhabitet in taber- 
 naculis tuis.^®® Thus the effect is shown to consist in the peace 
 and bliss of heaven. 
 
 Elsewhere Flilary speaks of Christ’s sacrifice which reconciled 
 us to God, redeemed us, and took away our sins—^^est enim Hni- 
 genitus Dei films Deus Verbum redemptio nostra, pax nostra in 
 cujus sanguine reconciliati Deo sumus. . . Filins ipse pro peccatis 
 nostris et propitiatio et redemptio et deprecatio est ”. Hilary 
 
 9, 415. 
 
 9, 723, Ps. CXXIX, 9. 
 
38 
 
 therefore found in placatio and propitiatio ’’ the elements of 
 expiation by which sin was removed, and propitiation by which 
 God was reconciled. Sin, God, and man are then the components 
 of the two terms. 
 
 Who is He, Ambrose asks, of whom it is written: Ecce Agnus 
 Dei, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi. . . Quern proposuit Deus 
 propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine ipsiusHo other than the 
 Verbum Dei, the same who tells Moses: Impones propitiatorium 
 super arcam desuper . . . et innotescam tibi inde, et loquar tibi 
 desuper It is noteworthy that Ambrose translates pro¬ 
 
 pitiatorem ; yet he identifies Christ as propitiator with the 0. T. 
 
 propitiatorium The reference to the 0. T. type hinges on its 
 special quality as the place where God made Himself known and 
 manifested His presence. Again, Ambrose explains that Christ 
 needed not propitiation, but is Himself propitiatio omnium . . , 
 et ipse est universorum redemptio His redeeming blood had 
 bhis effect: “ non quaeritur ergo propitiatio, aut redemptio singu- 
 lorum; quia omnium pretium sanguis est Christi, quo nos redemit 
 Dominus Jesus, qui solus Patrem reconciliavit Mention must 
 be made that the distinction between IXacrrypLov and IXaafio^ in the 
 Greek Fathers is not identical with propitiator and pro- 
 piatio ” of Ambrose. 
 
 According to Jerome Christ is the real and true ‘^^propitia- 
 torium^k Commenting on the two “ propitiatoria’’ seen by the 
 prophet Ezechiel Jerome applies both to Christ: Propitiatorium 
 minus est, quando exinanivit se formam servi accipiens, et pro- 
 pitiatorium majus, quando recepit gloriam, quam habuit apud 
 Patrem antequam mundus fieret’k^®^ This allegory implies 1) 
 that Christ is the H. T. propitiatory in His humanity as well as 
 in His divinity, 2) equality with the Father. 
 
 With Augustine propitiation can be effected only through sac¬ 
 rifice. “ Quid est, fieri Deum impietati propitium ? id est igno- 
 scentem et veniam dantem. Sed ut Dei venia impetretur, pro¬ 
 pitiatio fit per aliquod sacrificium Such is the propitiation 
 wrought by Christ in His incarnation—^^hoc holocaustum obtulit 
 Deo . . . et impietates nostrae propitiatae sunt’k^°° Making use 
 of similar terms Augustine teaches that Christ’s blood expiated 
 for all sins and redeemed mankind, and here he says emphatically: 
 
 14, 577-578, De Fuga Saec., Ill, 16. 
 
 MPL., 14, 1161, Ps. XLVIII, 10. 
 
 ^»»MPL, 25, 422, In Ez. XLIII. 
 
 MPL, 36, 777, Ps. LXIV, 4. 
 
39 
 
 Quae est ista propitiatio, nisi sacrificium ? Et quod est sacrifi- 
 cium, nisi quod pro nobis oblatum est? Sanguis innocens fusus 
 delevit omnia peccata nocentium; pretium tantum datum redemit 
 omnes captives de manu captivantis inimici In another pas¬ 
 
 sage Augustine explains propitiation as placationem qua 
 flectat Deum pro peccatis Thus God, man, and sin are included 
 as objects of propitiatioTwice Augustine renders the 
 Pauline word by propitiatorium without, however, offering any 
 explanation. This would suggest that he saw in St. PauPs use of 
 the term an obvious reference to the 0. T. propitiatory as a type 
 of Christ. 
 
 Gregory the Great refers Eom. in, 25 to the propitiatory in 
 the Holy of Holies: Quid est quod in tabernaculo propitiatorium , 
 fieri jubetur, . . . nisi quod utraque Testamenta ita sibi in Media- 
 tore Dei et hominum congruunt? Quid enim per propitiatorium 
 nisi ipse Eedemptor humani generis designatur This same 
 
 comparison is found in another passage, but here he quotes I Jn. 
 II, 2 and says: Quid vero per propitiatorium nisi incarnatus 
 Dominus figuratur With the Greek Fathers, Gregory con¬ 
 
 siders Christ as the real place of expiation and propitiation. The 
 quotation of the Johannine use of the abstract noun would seem 
 to indicate that Gregory did not distinguish between IXaar^piov 
 and tXxi(Tfx6<;. 
 
 Summary of the Latin Patristic Literature 
 
 To recapitulate: The Latin Fathers, while not expressing them¬ 
 selves with such clearness as the Greeks concerning the double 
 element, nevertheless interpret the terms propitiatio ''pla- 
 catio ”, and deprecatio as Christ’s sacrifice effecting expiation 
 of sin, propitiation of God, and reconciliation between God and 
 man; ^^propitiatorium” as Christ Himself, the antitype of the 
 “ propitiatorium ” in the Holy of Holies. Of special importance 
 are the words of Augustine that propitiatio ” is effected per 
 sacrificium Meager as it is, the Latin patristic exegesis of St. 
 Paul’s term shows acquaintance with and runs parallel to that of 
 the Greek Fathers. 
 
 MPL, 37, 1697, Ps. CXXIX, 4. 
 
 MPL, 36, 549, Ps. XLVITI, 9. 
 
 203 mpl 44, 133, De Peccatonim Meritis et Eemissione, I, 27; 213, De 
 Spir. et Lit. XTII. MPL, 76, 1191, TTom. in Evang. IT, 25. 
 
 »®^MPL. 76, 835, Horn, in Ez. I, 6. 
 
40 
 
 4. IN THE EXEGESIS OF THE MIDDLE AGES DOWN TO MODERN 
 
 TIMES 
 
 The exegesis of St. Paul’s concept in this period follows in the 
 main that of the patristic writers. We deem it best to arrange 
 the authors in groups according to the various interpretations; 
 these fall into four divisions. TAaorr^ptov in Rom. iii^ 25 designates 
 1) Christ as the N. T. reality against the type in the Holy of 
 Holies; 2) Christ as expiator or propitiator; 3) the expiatory or 
 propitiatory sacrifice of Christ; 4) the sacrifice of Christ as a 
 means of expiation or propitiation. 
 
 1. For the first view might be quoted more than 50 authors, 
 all of whom explicitly state that Christ is the reality in contrast 
 to the 0. T. mere appearance. This interpretation was quite 
 prevalent during the middle ages among Greek as well as Latin 
 writers. It will do to mention Isidore of Seville (636),^®® Vener¬ 
 able Bede (735)/®’’ Rabanus Maurus (856),^®® Atto Yercellensis 
 (960)/®® Oecumenius (X cent.)/^® Theopbylact (ca. 1100)/^^ 
 Rupert Tuitiensis (XII cent.)/^^ and Sicardus Cremonensis 
 (1215).^^® Among the exegetes of the following centuries men¬ 
 tion may be made of Erasmus (1536)/^^ Calvin (1564)/^® 
 Grotius (1645)/^® Hammond (1660)/^^ Vitringa (ca. 1700)/^® 
 Burkitt (1703)/^® Locke (1704)/^® and Bengel ( 1751 ). 
 
 ^®MPL, 83, 311, In Ex. 46: Per propitlatorium . . . ipse Christus in- 
 sinuatur. MPL, 82, 544, Etymol. XV: Propitiatorium: quasi propitiationis 
 oratorium. 
 
 “^MPL, 91, 404, De Tabern. I: Propitiatorium non aliud quam Dominum 
 Salvatorem . . . designat. 
 
 ^®MPL, 108, 414, In Lev. V: Ipse [Christus] est enim veriim et intelli- 
 gibile propitiatorium. 
 
 ^MPL, 134, 777, Ad Hebr.: Propitiatorium quippe non aliud quam 
 Dominum Salvatorem . . . designat. 
 
 MPG, 118, 385, Ad Rom.: i} rov Kupiou aap^ ij TrepiKdXvTrTovffa r^v 
 eavTov OeoTTjra iXacrripiov yeyope rwv rjpLeTepojp dvop,iu)v. 
 
 MPG, 124, 388, Ad Rom.: el rb IXacri^piov rb vopuKov, tvttos ov tov 
 ’Xpiarov, roiavTTjv elx^v lcrx^^> ttoXXw pidXXov ^ dXriOeta. 
 
 212 mpl, 167, 702, In Ex. VI: Propitiatorium namque nobis idem incar- 
 natus Deus est, sed per passionem et mortem suam. 
 
 ^^^MPL, 213, 224, Mitrale, V: Per propitiatorium incarnatus Dominus 
 figuratur. 
 
 Critici Sacri, VII, 659. Opera, IV, 55. 
 
 Comm, in Pauli Ep,, 28. Notes on N. T. 
 
 Opera Theol. Ill, 697. Paraphrase on Rom., 305. 
 
 Paraphrase on N. T., 400. Gnomon of N. T., 48-49. 
 
41 
 
 2. More than 25 scholars favor the meaning expiator, pro¬ 
 pitiator or reconciliator; among them: Hapnon (853)/^^ Abelard 
 (1142),“^^ Peter Blesensis (ca. 1200)/^“^ Bonaventnre (1274)/^^ 
 Vatablns (1547)/^® Estins (1613)/^'^ and Parens (ca. 1650).^^® 
 To these may be added Tirinns (1636)/^® Cornelius a Lapide 
 (1637)/^° Menochins (1655)/^^ and others who render IXaar^pLov 
 by expiator, propitiator or reconciliator shading it with the idea 
 of an expiating and propitiating victim. 
 
 3. The interpretation of the Panline IXaa-T^pLov as expiatory or 
 propitiatory sacrifice or victim is proposed by at least 10 com¬ 
 mentators, all of them living in the second half of the eighteenth 
 centnry. Some are Calmet,^®^ Koppe/^® Eisner,Kypke,^^® and 
 Clericns.^^® 
 
 4. A few later scholars lean towards IXaaryjpLov as something 
 that expiates or propitiates, or as a means of expiation or pro¬ 
 pitiation. This is held by Stephanns,^^’’ Castalio,^®® Alting,^^® 
 Diodatns and others. 
 
 ^^MPL, 117, 392, Ad Rom.: Filium suum proposuit Deus Pater . . . 
 propitiatorem et reoonciliatorem. 
 
 223 mpL, 178, 833, Ad Rom.: Quern proposuit nobis Deus Pater propitia- 
 tionem, id est, reconciliatorem. 
 
 ®^MPL, 207, 926, De Char., 26: Deus Filium suum nobis propitiatorem 
 constituit. 
 
 Opera, III, 401: Quern proposuit Deus propitiatorem. 
 
 Critici Sacri, VII, 660: Quern Deus . . . decrevit reconciliatorem. 
 
 Comm, in Rom., 70; Probabilius est hie acoipi . . . ut propitiatorem 
 significet seu reconciliatorem. 
 
 Opera Theol., 88: Teneamus . . . Christum constitutum a Deo IXacrr-ri- 
 ptov, propitiatorem. 
 
 In S. S. Comm. IV, 491: Propitiationem, id est, propitiatorem vel 
 victimam propitiantem et placantem hominibus Deum. 
 
 2®o Comm. in S. S., XVIII, 74: Propitiator, scilicet, victima propitians et 
 placans Deum hominibus. 
 
 Comm, in S. S., II, 627: Propitiationem, id est, propitiatorem, scilicet 
 victimam propitiantem et placantem Deum hominibus. 
 
 Comm, in V. et X. T., VIII, 66: Victima expiationis. 
 
 838 ]^ T. Graece, IV, 74: Victima expiatoria. 
 
 =‘^^Observ. Sacrae, II, 20: Expiatorium sacrifioium. 
 
 ^“Observ. Sacrae, I, 161: Sacrificium expiatorium. 
 
 *^®Epi8t. S. Apostolorum, 30: Piacularis victima. 
 
 “^Critici Sacri, VII, 665: Placamentum. 
 
 Interprete Biblia, 214: Placamentum. 
 
 Comm, in X Capita ad Rom., 69: Placamentum. 
 
 Annotations on the Bible, III: Means of expiation and reconciliation. 
 
42 
 
 The traditional Greek patristic interpretation of Christ as the 
 reality of the 0. T. type was therefore preserved and copied more 
 generally than any other. Some exegetes admit the double ele¬ 
 ment of expiation and propitiation and others select either. The 
 idea of sacrifice is considered essential to the term. 
 
 Recapitulation and Conclusion of the Historical Part 
 
 Having traced the history of the Pauline IXaaTjjpiov through all 
 its stages we are in a position to pass judgment on the net results 
 and their value. 
 
 Undoubtedly the outstanding feature of the historical investi¬ 
 gation is the fact that at all times the majority of scholars inter¬ 
 preted the Pauline term in Pom. iii, 25 as designating Christ the 
 antitype of the 0. T. IXao-rrjpiov. In Him was realized all which 
 the type in the Holy of Holies symbolized. Patristic interpre¬ 
 tation, the Greek particularly, refers to the 0. T. iXacr-rqpiov as the 
 special locality where, by sprinkling the blood of the sin-offering, 
 expiation was made for the sins of the Israelites and propitiation 
 of God was effected, and where His presence was manifested. 
 While some modern commentators explain the O.T. lXa<TTr)pLov as 
 describing a locality, it was seen that present day exegesis is by 
 no means agreed as to the essential presence of the elements of 
 expiation and propitiation. 
 
 Two important questions now present themselves for solution. 
 1) Whence comes the word iXaurr^piov with its notion of locality 
 as interpreted by patristic writers? 2) Are the elements of expia¬ 
 tion, propitiation, sacrifice, and divine presence essentially and 
 necessarily included in the current meaning of iXdaKedOai and its 
 derivatives, or are they peculiar to the koivt] SLdXeKTo<;? In order 
 to answer these questions satisfactorily an investigation of profane 
 as well as biblical literature is necessary. 
 
PART II—EXEGETICAL 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 Historico-liteeary Investigation of IAA2KE:S0AI and its 
 
 Derivatives 
 
 I. In the Hellenic World 
 
 Greek patristic literature, although correctly placed in a class 
 by itself, does not constitute a linguistic break, but must be con¬ 
 sidered as a continuation of the literary past, namely, the litera¬ 
 ture of the classic Greek world. This past, therefore, may not be 
 ignored and, in order to establish precisely the meaning of St. 
 Pauhs term, we must examine the root-verb IXdaKeadaL and its • 
 cognates from its earliest usage in extant Greek literature. From 
 modern authors we gather some general ideas of what we may 
 expect. Thus C. M. Kerr ^ writes that the root ideas of the 
 term imply that he who propitiates feels himself in some manner 
 to be lacking or at fault, and that the favour of him who is pro¬ 
 pitiated is worth the gaining”. In other words, he who pro¬ 
 pitiates desires previously to expiate for his faults in order to 
 effect reconciliation. The expiation of sin among the Greeks, as 
 A. Fairbanks^ very significantly says, must be considered from 
 these three angles: ^^(a) the purification from the taint of evil, 
 (b) the allaying of Divine anger caused by intentional or unin¬ 
 tentional disregard of what is due to the gods, and (c) the restora¬ 
 tion of a man who has transgressed some moral law to harmony 
 with the gods. The emphasis on these three points of view varies, 
 but from Homer onward they are all three present”. Hence in 
 examining profane examples our special attention must be directed 
 to the presence or absence of any of these three points. 
 
 Homer, in the lengthy narrative on the abduction of Chryseis, 
 the daughter of Chryses, uses forms of IXacrKeaBm, which indicate 
 expiatory and propitiatory notions. Chryses comes to ransom his 
 daughter held captive by Agamemnon, but his proffered ransom is 
 not accepted, neither is his daughter returned. Chryses suppli¬ 
 cates the aid of Apollo who is angered at the conduct of Aga¬ 
 memnon. The god sends destructive arrows into Agamemnon’s 
 
 ^ERE, X, 393, art. Propitiation (Introductory and Biblical). 
 
 *ERE, V, 651, art. Expiation and Atonement (Greek). 
 
 45 
 
46 
 
 army, a deadly pestilence visits his people, and countless numbers 
 perish. Seeking to learn the cause of these punishments Aga¬ 
 memnon has recourse to Calchas the seer. The latter informs him 
 that Apollo is angry because he has abducted Chryseis and refuses 
 to return her to her father. If Agamemnon would have the afflic¬ 
 tions cease he must return Chryseis and offer up a sacred heca¬ 
 tomb for, only after we have IXao-adfxevoL may we prevail upon 
 the god—TOT€ Kev jXLv iXadddfxevoi TreTTLOoLfxev We are told that 
 Agamemnon follows the advice of Calchas. A sacred hecatomb 
 is put on the ship with the maid, and Palides is asked to perform 
 the sacred rites so that having brought sacrifices you may tXdacreaL 
 the far-darting Apollo for us — 6(f)p’ cKdepyov iXdxra-eai lepd 
 
 peia<;’\^ By sacrifices Palides is to atone for Agamemnon^s 
 crime and to procure thus the good graces of Apollo. At home 
 Agamemnon orders the army to he purified and chosen hecatombs 
 of bulls and goats to he sacrificed to Apollo.^ Chryses is returned 
 to her father, the sacred hecatomb is offered in order that ^‘^we 
 may tXaadpieaOa the lord Apollo —IXadopeada ava/cra’^.® The afflic¬ 
 tions cease; a banquet is prepared for the god and the soldiers; 
 and all day long youths sang and Oebv IXoiatkovtoJ 
 
 In this narrative the several forms of tXda-Kea-Om embrace not 
 only the element of propitiation, which is certainly the most con¬ 
 spicuous, but likewise that of expiation. By abducting the daugh¬ 
 ter of Chryses, Agamemnon incurs the anger of the god. Apollo 
 punishes the entire army and refuses to be reconciled until the 
 guilt of Agamemnon is atoned for. In order to make expiation and 
 propitiation Agamemnon must sacrifice. Accordingly the verb 
 tXdaKeaOm itself contains the elements of expiation and propitiation 
 brought about through sacrifice. 
 
 The sons of Athens annually IXdovTat their god in a sump¬ 
 tuous temple by means of bulls and lambs— iv tt'lovl \n]<X . . . ravpoLdi 
 Kal dpveioi^ IXdovrm . . . TrepLTeXXopievwv iviavrcHv This act must 
 have been a specific ceremony apart from the other frequent sacri¬ 
 ficial offerings to the gods. As such it may be accepted as a 
 ceremony by which through sacrifices the people hoped to expiate 
 their faults and wrong-doings of the past year, to propitiate the 
 god, and thus obtain his favor for the ensuing year. It is rel- 
 
 =* II., I, 100. 
 
 Ml., I, 147. 
 
 '‘Cf. II., I, 313-316. 
 
 «II., I, 444. 
 
 "II., I, 472. 
 
 «I1., II, 549-551. 
 
47 
 
 evant also that the sacrifices are affixed to a particular place, i. e., 
 the temple, the special abode of the deity. 
 
 Hector returns from the battle field to Troy, there to assemble 
 the Trojan women in the temple of Minerva in order to supplicate 
 the aid of the goddess in the fight with the Greeks. Hot finding 
 her at home. Hector inquires of a maid whether his wife also has 
 gone ^Ho the temple where the women IXdaKovTm the dreaded 
 goddess—e? ^AOrjvacr]'? evOa . . . heivrjv Oeov iXacrKovTUL 
 
 The meaning of IXadKovrai in this passage would seem to be 
 bestowal of the goddess’ favor. But, besides, the Trojans seem 
 to fear her wrath in the conflict because of misdeeds, and therefore 
 they repair to the temple to expiate their faults and to placate 
 the goddess. Again, these acts are performed in the temple and 
 they offer the goddess a most beautiful robe with the promise’ 
 that, if they conquer the Greeks, they will offer as sacrifice twelve 
 yearling heifers that have never borne the yoke.^® 
 
 Hestor sends his son Telemachus on an important mission to 
 Menelaus at Sparta. Before the departure Hestor commands the 
 sacrifice of a heifer ^^so that we may IXdacroix Pallas the first of 
 the gods— d(}>p’ TOi Trpdinara Oeiov IXdacyop!' ’A6yv7]v The inten¬ 
 tion probably is that of seeking the favor of the goddess so that 
 the son’s journey may be without mishap. But, at all events, we 
 notice that sacrifice enters into the notion of IXddKeo-Oai. 
 
 We may conclude from this that Homer used forms of iXdaKeaOm 
 for both to expiate and to propitiate, and these results were sought 
 by means of sacrifice generally offered in a sacred place. Ho 
 example of any substantive or adjective form can be adduced. 
 
 The situation in Herodotus (443 B. C.) is similar. He relates 
 how Croesus sent messengers to the various oracles consulting them 
 about the manner of proceeding against his enemies. Of all the 
 answers only that of the Delphic oracle was accepted by Croesus 
 who, accordingly, IXdo-KeTo the god with many sacrifices —Ovaurjcn 
 pLeydXrjm rbv Iv AeXcpolcTL 6ebv IXdaKcro ”. The offerings consisted 
 of three thousand sacrificial beasts and many gifts of gold and 
 silver.^^ At first reading the act of Croesus can be taken as one 
 of thanksgiving only. But it must also be considered as an act 
 whereby the god’s favor is sought in the coming difficulties; neither 
 is the desire to atone for any possilde misdeeds entirely excluded. 
 
 »II., VI, 379-380. “ Od., Ill, 419. 
 
 '•’Cf. 11., VI, 297-311. “llist., I, 50. 
 
48 
 
 Important is that all these acts are procured only by means of 
 sacrifices and offerings. 
 
 The Lacedaemonians had suffered continual defeat at the hands 
 of the Tegeans. The Delphic oracle was asked which one of the 
 gods they must propitiate— rlva av 0€wv IXaaafievoL in order to pre¬ 
 vail against the Tegeans. The oracle ordered them to remove to 
 Sparta the bones of Orestes, the son of Agamemnon.^^ Evidently 
 the Lacedaemonians were conscious of some guilt and anxious to 
 know how to expiate this guilt and be again restored to the god^s 
 favor. Instead of the usual means of expiation and propitiation 
 which is sacrifice, we have here as equivalent the restoration of the 
 bones of Orestes. 
 
 According to Scythian tradition four implements of gold — a 
 plough, a yoke, a battle-axe, and a drinking cup—fell from the sky. 
 Three brothers were at that time ruling the land. The two oldest 
 went to pick up the instruments, but these took fire and blazed. 
 When Colaxais, the youngest, approached, the flames disappeared; 
 he picked up the instruments and carried them into his home, 
 where they were carefully guarded and honored. Annually the 
 Scythians come and propitiate with great sacrifices— Ovair^ai fieydXrjaL 
 IXadKOfxevoL ixerep'^ovrai dva Trdv ero? This annual ceremony must 
 have been intended as an atonement for the guilt of the two older 
 brothers, and the good graces of the divinely worshipped golden 
 implements were obtained through sacrifices at the place where 
 they were guarded and honored. 
 
 Pheidippides, an Athenian by birth, was sent to Sparta. On his 
 return he related how on the way he met the god Pan, who bade 
 him ask the Athenians why they neglected him who had always 
 been kindly disposed towards them. Believing in the truth of this 
 report, the Athenians erected a temple to Pan and propitiated 
 him yearly with sacrifices and a torch race —ISpvaavTo . . . navo? 
 
 tpov, Kal avTov a7ro ravriq^ ayyeAiTy? OvcTLrjaL lireTerjaL koL XapiTraSi 
 
 lXd(TKovTaL^\^^ Thus they strove to make good their past neglect 
 and to secure the future favor of Pan. The ceremonies consisted 
 principally in the sacrifices offered in his temple. Expiation and 
 propitiation with the sacrificial notion clearly appear. 
 
 In answer to an inquiry of the Delphians concerning the safety 
 of the Greeks, the oracle bade them pray to the winds who would 
 give Greece good service. In gratitude the Delphians raised an 
 
 13 
 
 Hist., I, 67. 
 
 14 
 
 Hist., IV, 7. 
 
 15 
 
 Hist., VI, 105. 
 
49 
 
 altar to the winds—roto-t dve/xoto-t worshipped them with sac¬ 
 
 rifices — OvdLrjcrL o'(/)€as ixeTiftaav, and even “ vvv TOV<i avifxov^i Ikda- 
 Kovrai’^^^ This propitiation is the fruit of sacrifice at a special 
 place, the altar. 
 
 While these references do not always clearly allude to the notion 
 of expiation, it is patently presupposed. When propitiation is 
 made and reconciliation brought about, it shows previous con¬ 
 sciousness of a need to atone for misdeeds so as not to lose the 
 favor of the gods or those honored as gods. The conclusion is 
 warranted that in Herodotus the notions of sacrifice and pro¬ 
 pitiation are quite manifest while that of expiation is only in¬ 
 ferred. TAao-T'^ptoi/ as adjective or noun is not found in Herodotus. 
 
 Xenophon (401 B. C.) relates how Cyrus, preparatory to 
 moving his army, sacrificed to the gods in hope that they would 
 lend aid in leading, advising, and assisting in the conflict. Im¬ 
 mediately upon arriving at his destination he hastened ^Ho pro¬ 
 pitiate the earth by libations and the gods by sacrifices —yrjv IXdo-KeTo 
 XoaU Kal Oeovq Ovaim-i Doubting the veracity of the oracle at 
 Delphi, Croesus consulted it several times. His incredulity con¬ 
 stituted an affront to Apollo. To make expiation for this and to 
 allay his anger Croesus sent to the oracle numerous votive offer¬ 
 ings, much silver, and ordered very many sacrifices—rroAXa . . . 
 TrefXTTwv dva67),imTa xpv<Tdf TroAAa S’ dpyvpd, Trap-TToAAa 8e Ovcav eAAao-a/XTyv 
 TTore avTov In these examples the fundamental elements at¬ 
 tached to the root of {i$) cXdaKeaOaL are evident. It must be added 
 that the word IXaar^pLov is not used by Xenophon. 
 
 Apollonius of Ehodes (200 B.C.) tells us how Mopsus the 
 seer directs Aeson’s son to go up to the temple on the hill Dindy- 
 mum, there to propitiate the mother (Ehea) of all the blessed 
 gods— iXa^OucrOm pLrjTepa avpiTrdvTMV pxiKdpoiV The act of the youth 
 
 is to be taken not merely as worship of the goddess but also as 
 propitiatory. It is performed in the temple and, while the means 
 are not mentioned, we must assume sacrifice or offering of some 
 sort. Among the scholia to Apollonius of Ehodes there occurs a 
 word which brings us in closer contact with the IXaaTi^pLov question, 
 for we meet a form of the adjective. In explanation of Xo}<f>^La Upd, 
 the scholiast says rovriaTtv e^LXouTTijpui Kat KaTaTravari^pLa rr/? 
 
 VIT, 17S. 
 
 ” Cyr., Ill, 3, 22. 
 «Cyr., VII, 2. 19. 
 Argon anti ca, 1, 1093. 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 o/oy^5 ” i. e.;, sacrifices that brought relief, namely, expiatory 
 (sacrifices) and those appeasing the anger (of the gods). Here 
 also the two fundamental elements are contained although the ex¬ 
 piatory notion is more prominent. Is the appearance of such a 
 similar form to the substantive at this late period only incidental 
 or is it, perhaps, to be attributed to the influence of a source which 
 we must yet investigate? 
 
 In Plutarch (80 A. D.) we read that Androgeos, son of King 
 Minos of Crete, was treacherously murdered within the confines of 
 Attica. Angered by this deed Minos sought to avenge the death 
 of his son. He harassed the Atticans and even heaven sent pes¬ 
 tilence to the people and barrenness upon their land. Conse¬ 
 quently the inhabitants consulted their god who assured them, if 
 they appeased Minos and became reconciled to him — IXaaaixivoLs tov 
 Mtvoi Kal SiaXXayelo-Ly the evils would abate. Wherefore they agreed 
 to send Minos a tribute of seven youths and seven maidens every 
 ninth year.^^ The guilt of the murder of the king’s son demanded 
 expiation. This was carried out by sending the youths and 
 maidens as offerings to Minos; thus the latter was propitiated and 
 reconciliation brought about between the king and the Atticans. 
 
 In Plutarch is found another characteristic development of the 
 root of IXdaKeo-OaL in profane Greek. It is the substantive iXaafio^ 
 and its use, perhaps, is not entirely accidental. He relates that 
 Athens was agitated by the Cylonian pollution caused by the unjust 
 murders of Cylon and his followers. (Superstitious fears and 
 strange appearances were alarming the people and the seers de¬ 
 clared that the usual sacrifices indicated defilements of guilt which 
 demanded purifications. The Athenians summoned Epimenides of 
 Phaestus, a wise man, w^ho brought immediate succor. Most im¬ 
 portant was that by iXaafxoU and purifications — to 8e fxeyLarov, 
 iXacrjjLOLs run Kal KaOapjjbol^; — he cleansed the city, made it heedful of 
 Justice, and more inclined to concord.^^ To kill Cylon and his 
 followers at the altar of Athene was an insult to the goddess de¬ 
 manding expiation and reconciliation. Therefore IXaafioU ex¬ 
 presses the means made use of to these ends. Doubtless they were 
 sacrifices or offerings at the altar or the temple of the goddess. 
 Camillus, on setting out against the Veii, had vowed, if successful, 
 to consecrate one-tenth of the spoils to the Delphian god. After 
 his victory he neglected to make good that promise. Later on he 
 
 ^iSchol. Argonaut., Ed. Bnmck, II, 165. 
 
 Theseus, I, 15. ==* Solon, XII, 5. 
 
51 
 
 referred the matter to the seers who announced that ‘‘the anger 
 of the gods demanded IXaxrjxov and thanksgivings —ihqviv IXao-iiov 
 Kol x<^p(-o-TrjpLoiv SeopevTjv By not keeping his vow Camillus in¬ 
 curred the anger of the gods. To remove this guilt, expiation was 
 to he made before he might hope to propitiate the anger of the 
 gods. The IXcurpiov hints at the means employed; what they were, 
 Plutarch does not say, but we may safely understand sacrifices or 
 offerings. Pausanias had raped a Byzantine virgin and then killed 
 her. After this outrage he had no peace of mind. In his sleep he 
 frequently heard a voice telling him to go and atone for his crime—■ 
 /Salve, dcrcrov • fiaXa rot KaKov dvSpdaLV vfSpL'?. Bepairing to the 
 
 psychopompeion at Heraclea he recalled the soul of the girl by 
 tAacTjLtots and by sacrifices to the dead —tXaapiols tkjl kuI yoat?. She 
 foretold that in punishment for his crime he would have to die.^‘‘ 
 Here we see that by means of sacrifices Pausanias made expiation 
 and propitiation; yet the penalty of death remained. 
 
 Plutarch’s verb and noun usages of IXdaKeaOaL include the element 
 of expiation and that of propitiation; the means were sacrifices or 
 offerings at a special place. Of interest is the substantive tAacr/xo?, 
 whose signification must be that of means of expiation and pro¬ 
 pitiation. 
 
 Summary 
 
 Briefly summarized the study of profane Greek literature has 
 shown that IXda-KeaOai means not only to propitiate hut also to ex¬ 
 piate; these two notions are inseparably connected with the root. 
 Ordinarily these acts of expiation and propitiation were produced 
 by means of sacrifice or offering in a temple or some other sacred 
 place. With Fairbanks it may be said that the expiation of sin 
 consisted first, in setting right one’s attitude toward the gods; 
 secondly, in appeasing the Divine anger”, which signifies that 
 when profane writers employed the term IXdcrKeaOaL and its cog¬ 
 nates they had reference to the act of expiating sin and of pro¬ 
 pitiating the anger of the gods. 
 
 Of paramount importance is the fact that in profane Greek we 
 find no example of the substantive iXaarypiov. TAatr/xo?, which sig¬ 
 nifies the means of expiation as well as propitiation, is employed 
 only in later Greek literature, while the adjective c^tAao-r^pto? is 
 found in the scholia of a late writer. 
 
 *■' Camillus, VII, 5. Mor., 2, 555, C. 
 
 *“ERE, V, 653, art.. Expiation and Atonement (Greek). 
 
52 
 
 Corollary 
 
 We have arrived at the conclusion that in the Greek religious 
 world of thought IXdaKecrOaL is a terminus technicus for the re¬ 
 storation of the natural relation, especially between an offended god 
 and the offending party. The fundamental meaning of this tech¬ 
 nical term was found to embrace three elements: a) propitiation 
 on the part of the one offended, b) removal or forgiveness of the 
 offence, c) offering or sacrifice as the means of accomplishing 
 expiation and propitiation. The test for the correctness of this 
 analysis is furnished by other instances in Greek literature. There 
 are many examples in which the process of reconciliation between 
 the offended god and sinful man by means of offering or sacrifice 
 is described without the use of IXda-KeadaL and its cognates. A few 
 will suffice to illustrate. 
 
 We read in Homer that Aegisthus, after seducing Clytemnestra, 
 the wife of Agamemnon, led her away to his own palace. Aegis¬ 
 thus felt that this act w^as not so much an offence against Aga¬ 
 memnon, but more so a sin against the gods whose anger he also 
 feared. Hence he sought to receive forgiveness for his sin and to 
 regain the favor of the gods ‘^by offering many a victim’s thigh 
 upon the sacred altars of the gods and by hanging within their 
 temples many a gift of ornaments wrought in gold —iroWd 5c firjpia 
 Krje Oewv lepol^; eirl /?a)/xot9, TroAAa 5’ dyaXpcar^ dviiif/ev, vcpdapbaTa re 
 Xpvaov re . 
 
 In Od. IV it is related that Menelaus was unwillingly detained 
 on the shores of Egypt because ^“^he had not brought the sacrifice 
 of chosen hecatombs as the gods required” (352-353). For this 
 neglect the gods punish Menelaus by not permitting favorable 
 winds for his return journey. To the question of a goddess why 
 he does not depart, he replies: “ I must have sinned against the 
 immortal dwellers of the high heaven —/ccAAw dOavdrov^; aXireaBai, dl 
 ovpavdv evpw exovcriv ” (377-378). The goddess again tells him 
 this punishment is being inflicted because he should have offered 
 first the accustomed sacrifice to Jove and the other gods” (472- 
 473). He resolves therefore to atone for his neglect in order to 
 remove the anger of the gods and to secure favorable winds. He 
 offered the prescribed sacrifices and appeased the anger of the 
 gods— epe^a reXrjeaaa^ eKaropijSa^s . . . KarcTrawa Beoiv yoAor ” (582- 
 583). In this narrative it is obvious that Menelaus had to expiate 
 
 2«Od., Ill, 273-274. 
 
53 
 
 for his utter disregard of the usual sacrifices to the gods before he 
 could hope to propitiate their incurred anger and to obtain their 
 good favor. He accomplished all by bringing the necessary 
 sacrifices. 
 
 Ulysses, being shipwrecked with his companions, found refuge 
 on the island of the Suu. A beautiful herd of cattle, which were 
 held sacred and under the protection of the sun god, grazed on 
 the island. Ulysses strictly forbade his companions to slay any 
 of the herd for the oracle had foretold that evil would befall them 
 if they did. When the supplies were diminished, unmindful of the 
 threat the companions slaughtered the best of the herd. They, 
 thought to allay the anger of the god by vowing that, after re¬ 
 turning to Ithaca, ^“^they would build to the sun god a sumptuous 
 temple and endow it with many votive offerings^’ (Od. 346- 
 347). The sun god had been offended, so much so that the offence 
 permitted of no expiation, neither was the anger of the god pro¬ 
 pitiated. In punishment, as the narrative concludes, their ship 
 on the return voyage was cast upon the rocks and all perished but 
 Ulysses. Although the evil doers are here not successful in their 
 wish to expiate their guilt and to propitiate the anger of the god, 
 the general belief is evident that they could do so by erecting the 
 temple and endowing it with votive offerings. 
 
 In Hist. VI, 138-140 Herodotus relates how the Pelasgians car¬ 
 ried off a large number of Athenian women and kept them at 
 Lemnos as concubines. Fearing that the Athenian youths would 
 eventually overpower their own children, the Pelasgians killed the 
 Athenian women and their sons. Punishment for this act im¬ 
 mediately followed. The lands refused to bring forth fruits, the 
 Pelasgian population decreased, and their flocks and herds in¬ 
 creased more slowly than before. Sorely pressed they sent men to 
 Delphi and the oracle informed them that they must make what¬ 
 ever satisfaction the Athenians demand — A0rjvaLOL<TL iSixa? ScBovai 
 ravra?, Ta<s av avToVkOrjvaloi SiKa^crt. They required the Pelasgians 
 to give up their country and this also took place. The giving up 
 of their country served as the offering which the Pelasgians had to 
 bring in order to propitiate the anger of the Athenians. 
 
 In Hist. TX, 93-94 we read that the Apolloniats had a flock of 
 sheep which were sacred to the sun. The noblest citizens were 
 selected to guard the sheep from harm during the night. When a 
 certain Evenius was chosen to keep the watch he, one night, fell 
 asleep; wolves came and destroyed sixty of the sheep. When the 
 
54 
 
 loss was discovered, the Apolloniats brought Eveniiis to trial and 
 condemned him to lose his eyes. After he was blinded the sheep 
 had no young and the land ceased to hear its accustomed harvests. 
 Forthwith the Apolloniats consulted the oracles at Delphi and 
 Dodona. The answer was that the gods themselves had sent the 
 wolves and that they would continue punishing the Apolloniats 
 until they made to Evenius whatever atonement he asked —irplv y 
 StKas Smctl twj/ iiroirjaav TavTa<i, ras av avro? eXrjraL Kal StKaLol. EveniuS 
 demanded certain productive lands and a well furnished home, and 
 these were bought for him. This story points out again the ele¬ 
 ments of expiation and propitiation; both were effected by the 
 offering of the lands and the home to Evenius. 
 
 Euripides (b. 480 B. C.) offers two very expressive examples. 
 In Medea it is recorded how Jason deserts his wife Medea and 
 takes to himself the royal daughter of Creon. The anger of Medea 
 is aroused and she murders her two sons. She is likewise the 
 cause of the deaths of Creon and his daughter. Jason recalls to 
 Medea her own sinful life and she becomes conscious of her guilt. 
 In reply she remarks: I will institute a solemn festival and 
 offering to make atonement for this impious murder— crefiv^v kopr^v 
 Kal rlXrj Trpoa-dxf/opiev . . . dvrl rovSe ^vaae/3ov<s cf>6vov (1382-1383). 
 The desire of expiating the guilt of crime is clearly seen and with 
 it also there goes the wish to become reconciled; the festival and 
 offering are the means made use of to accomplish the desired effect. 
 
 In the play, Iphigenia in Aulis, the substance of the narrative 
 is the following. Agamemnon had pursued a hind into the sacred 
 precincts of Artemis and there killed it. He thereby incurred the 
 anger of the goddess and in punishment she prevented Aga¬ 
 memnon’s sailing from Aulis to Troy. Eager to know the cause 
 of his detention at Aulis Agamemnon seeks the advice of Calchas 
 the seer. He announces that Artemis is angry and will not grant 
 favorable winds until Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia 
 to Artemis (’I^tyfiVetav ea-Tretp^ eyw ^ ApTepu^i Ovcrai — 90-91). Ho 
 expression of humble repentance, no pleading on Agamemnon’s 
 part was capable of changing the decree of the goddess. Therefore 
 in order to expiate his guilt and to procure the good winds from 
 the goddess Agamemnon decides to bring his daughter as an ex¬ 
 piatory and propitiatory sacrifice.^^ Favored with good winds they 
 then set sail. It is easy to distinguish the presence of the three 
 elements in this narrative. 
 
 =“‘01 1570 - 1577 . 
 
55 
 
 II. In the LXX and Jewish Tradition 
 1. In the LXX 
 
 It is possible that the characteristic developments of the root of 
 iXdcrKeaOaL in profane Greek may be only incidental. But it is 
 highly probable that they are due to a special factor manifesting 
 its influence at about 200 B. C. When we see that the word 
 IXao-TrjpLov^ which practically never occurred in early profane litera¬ 
 ture, is employed in another world of thought with astonishing 
 frequency, the problem receives added interest. From the stand¬ 
 point of patristic interpretation we are forced to suppose a new- 
 agency which was powerful enough to create from current ideas a 
 new terminology in later hellenic literature; and at patristic times 
 this terminology had become so common that it plainly was not 
 a problematical or hazy notion but an every-day idea. Conse¬ 
 quently in the present question patristic literature is the historia 
 docens, pointing out the world from which this new agency exer¬ 
 cised its influence. By the constant appeal to the LXX as the 
 source for the term tAao-r^/otor, the Fathers clearly show that the 
 new power was the LXX. Accordingly, an inquiry into its use and 
 the meaning it attaches to IXda-KecrOai and the derivatives is of 
 utmost importance. 
 
 a) The Verb 
 
 Verbal forms of (1$) cXda-KeaOaL occur more than 160 times in the 
 LXX. At least 115 of these are the equivalent of more than 
 
 20 cases have no Hebrew equivalent, while in the remaining cases 
 (i^) iXdaKeaOaL is the equivalent for Hebrew verbs meaning to for¬ 
 give, pardon, expiate, conciliate, cleanse, free from sin, appease. 
 Let us examine the meaning of (el)tAao-Kecr^at—“103 to find out 
 
 what elements are included. 
 
 Jacob, conscious of having wronged his brother, is in mortal 
 dread of meeting Esau. Therefore, he sends his servants with 
 gifts in advance, saying: I will appease his face— iiiXdo-ofjuat t» 
 Trpoo-wTToi/ avTov —r^0 n303^J^* The meaning is that Jacob, con¬ 
 scious of his guilt of wrong doing, hopes by gifts to expiate this 
 guilt, to propitiate his brother’s anger, and to become reconciled 
 to him. 
 
 Gen. XXXII, 20. 
 
56 
 
 After the golden calf episode before going up the mountain to 
 God, Moses says to the people: I shall make expiation—e|tAdcr<o/xat—• 
 for yonr sins.^^*" This was effected either by the inter¬ 
 cession of Moses (v. 31), or by his offer to die' for his people (v. 
 32). The crime of idolatry through w^orship of the golden calf 
 required expiation; a wrathful God had to he propitiated. Moses 
 accomplished both either by interceding or by offering to die for 
 his people. 
 
 If a murder had been committed and the murderer was not dis¬ 
 covered the ancients of the nearest city where the murdered body 
 was found killed a heifer over running water and washed their 
 hands over it to protest their innocence. In prayer they be¬ 
 sought God not to lay this murder to their charge and to that of 
 the people, and ‘^Hhe blood (guilt) shall be expiated for them— 
 l^iXaaOr^aeraL avrol^ to aiixa — The guilt of blood 
 
 rested upon the land and the people. The prayer of the ancients 
 with the sacrifice of the unblemished heifer tended to make expia¬ 
 tion and to propitiate God, so that He would show Himself favor¬ 
 able to the people. 
 
 When the Lord appeared to Samuel in the temple He spoke of 
 the sins of Helfis sons and told ^Samuel that the iniquity of Helhs 
 house shall not be expiated— e^iXaaO^aeTaL —with victims nor 
 
 offerings for ever.^® Here the allusion is clear. The sins of Heli’s 
 sons brought the curse of God upon Heli himself, and the Lord 
 did not accept victims or offerings in expiation for these sins, 
 neither was the Lord propitiated, for Heli and his sons were killed. 
 
 David consulted the Lord concerning the cause of a three year 
 famine and was told it was a punishment because Saul and his 
 bloody house had slain the Gabaonites to whom the Israelites had 
 sworn protection. Calling them David asks: M^hat shall I do for 
 you and wherewith shall I make expiation—e^iAdo-co/mt—^00^. that 
 
 you may bless the inheritance of the Lord.^® The Gabaonites reply 
 (v. 4) that it is not a question of silver or gold between them¬ 
 selves and Saul, but that they desire to destroy the offspring of 
 the man who crushed and oppressed them unjustly (v. 5). There¬ 
 fore they ask for two of Saul’s sons and five of his grandsons that 
 they may crucify them to the Lord in Gabaa of Saul (v. 6). Their 
 
 =*^1 Kgs. Ill, 14. 
 
 H Kgs. XXI, 3. 
 
 =^'>Ex. XXXII, 30. 
 28 Deut. XXI, 8. 
 
57 
 
 request is granted, the seven are crucified and the Gabaonites are 
 satisfied. The injury done them by Saul is expiated by the death 
 of his offspring. God also is placated, for He showed mercy again 
 to the land after these things (v. 14). The guilt of the blood shed 
 by Saul rests upon his family, and its penal consequences affect 
 the entire nation. Therefore, the mercy of God is not shown to 
 the land until the guilt of these murders is removed. 
 
 A number of other references indicate the same twofold meaning 
 although the element of propitiation stands in the foreground. 
 Thus we read that the Lord is merciful and He will be propi¬ 
 tious— IXdaerai —*103 to sinners.^^ Again, deliver us, 0 Lord, on 
 
 account of Thy name and be propitious— IXdaOrjTL —103.^^ 
 
 In Leviticus and Numbers forms of l^LkdaKeaOaL occur more 
 than 60 times in connection with the sacrifices and offerings pre¬ 
 scribed by the law. Strikingly frequent is its occurrence in the 
 ceremonies laid down for the ritual observance of the day of Atone¬ 
 ment (Lev. XVI). In the majority of these cases the verb is 
 followed by nepl (expiate and propitiate for some one), and usually 
 the priests, Levites or High Priest perform these rites by means of 
 sacrifices. 
 
 While the examples from the LXX stress the element of expia¬ 
 tion in the meaning of (i^)lAda-KecrOai and its cognates, the element 
 of propitiation is certainly included. In profane Greek the idea 
 of propitiation appears to be more conspicuous; yet the idea of 
 expiation is also essentially contained in (e^)tAaoiK€<7^at. As S. E. 
 Driver says, “^^the difference marks a distinction between the 
 heathen and the Biblical points of view; though the idea of pro¬ 
 pitiating God may be involved in the phrases used in the OT, 
 it is much less prominent than in heathen writers In reference 
 to the LXX meaning of (e^)tAdCTK6o-0a6—303, he says: The expia¬ 
 tory rite has, no doubt, as its ultimate object the restoration of 
 God’s favour, and the worshipper’s forgiveness ”, and hence 
 “ though the idea of propitiation is, no doubt, involved in hipper, 
 it must not be unduly pressed; and the idea most distinctly 
 conveyed by the word was probably that of ^expiation’”. The 
 same writer states in the beginning of his article that kipper 
 
 “ Ps. LXXVH, 38. Ps. LXXVIH, 9. 
 
 3^>Cf. IV, 20, 2(), 31, 35; V, 6, 10, 13, 16, 18, 26; XIV, 18, 10, 20, 20, 31. 
 »^ Cf. VlII, 12, 19, 21; XV, 25, 28; XVI, 46, 47; XXVIll, 22, 30. 
 “ERE, V, 658, art. Expiation and Atonement (Hebrew). 
 
 “Op cit., 653. 
 
58 
 
 is the Heb. word corresponding to both ‘^make expiation^ and 
 ^ make atonement ^ The phraseology of J. Orr is similar. 
 Speaking of (ei)iXda-KeaOaL —“ipp in the LXX, he ’wrrites: Both 
 
 ideas seem to be implied here; the offence is cancelled or annulled, 
 . . . and God is rendered propitious. . . . The means by which 
 this was effected under the Law was ordinarily sacrifice 
 
 b) The Adjective 
 
 The only adjectival use of the term is found in Ex. xxv, 17, 
 where the words ^Hhou shalt make a np0p of pure gold^^ are 
 
 rendered by the LXX Trot^crets IXacr^pLOV lir'ideixa -)(pv(tIov KaOapov^^. 
 Concerning this example Deissmann^® correctly remarks that the 
 LXX ^^haben den Begriff kapporeth ganz richtig verstanden und 
 zwar auch als Breviloquenz namely, ftir kapporeth setzen sie 
 IXaaT^piov iTTiOepxi, weil es sich um eine Platte handelte, die irgend- 
 wie als Deckel der Bundeslade diente’k The adjective lXa<jT^piov 
 indicates that this Platte had something to do with expiation 
 and propitiation. The reason is clarified by the consideration of 
 the substantive. 
 
 c) The Substantive 
 
 In contrast to profane Greek literature the LXX writers use the 
 substantive frequently, no less than 27 times. Of this number 21 
 are renderings for 5 for n“liJ7 ; and in Amos ix, 1 
 
 its use is evidently the result of a mistaken reading of DpDp for 
 
 nnDp- 
 
 In the 21 cases the term is employed to designate the special 
 locality above the ark where God manifested His presence to the 
 Israelites, and where, by the sprinkling of the sacrificial blood, 
 expiation was made for the sins of the Israelites, and God declared 
 Himself placated. That the IXaar^piov had a particular purpose 
 
 765, art. Propitiation. 
 
 *»Op. cit., 207. 
 
 ®®They occur in Ex. XXV, 18, 19, 20 (twice), 21, 22; Ex. XXXI, 7; 
 Ex. XXXV, 12; Ex. XXXVII, 6, 7, 8, 9 (twice) ; Lev. XVI, 2 (twice), 
 13, 14 (twice), 15 (twice) ; Num. VII, 89. In Ex. XXVI, 34 the LXX 
 read tw KaraTrerdaixaTi for 717.^3 due, as Deissmann (Op. cit., 207) says, 
 to a faulty reading of for PlEi. 
 
 *«Ez. XLIII, 14 (3 times), 17, 20. 
 
59 
 
 and was not intended merely to close the ark, is implied by the 
 fact that it was made of solid gold while the ark itself was only 
 of wood overlaid with gold. Deissmann holds that in the LXX it 
 means ^^ein (Versohnendes oder) Siihnendes^ (Yersohnnngs- oder) 
 Siihnungsgegenstand oder -mitteYk^^ Thus Deissimann, while ad¬ 
 mitting the presence of either, would fain eliminate the propitia¬ 
 tory element. But our position is that both are essentially and 
 necessarily always involved. Xor is it probable, as Deissmann 
 argues, that iXaur^piov merely signifies a means or circumstance of 
 expiation and propitiation, because both profane as well as biblical 
 Greek examples have made it clear that ordinarily the means by 
 which these acts are effected is sacrifice. The correct meaning of 
 the word is suggested by the Holy of Holies being called the house 
 of expiation and propitiation. In I Par. xxviii, 11 the LXX does 
 not use lXa<TT7jpLov, but explains n^OZ) by tov olkov tov e^iXaapiov— 
 
 n*105n and in V. 20 it is again styled rov oIkov tov IXacrpov 
 
 The question arises whether this is only accidental or whether it 
 reveals a right understanding of n'HDS by the LXX ? By defining 
 
 the Holy of Holies as the house of expiation and propitiation the 
 LXX writers undoubtedly wished to show the all-importance of the 
 0. T. IXaxTT^pLov and also to offer a clue to its correct interpre¬ 
 tation. If n“l03 is the house of expiation and propitiation, then 
 
 lXa<TT^pLov designates the particular place within the Holy of Holies 
 where these acts were performed. It is likewise to be observed 
 that e^iXaapio^ and IXaapA^ are employed indiscriminately in the 
 above quoted example. The LXX employs the substantive 
 (c^)tAao-jLio? more than 25 times and in all cases it implies both 
 elements. Special attention may be called to Lev. xxiii, 27-28 
 where the Atonement day is twice designated as ■^p.epa e^iXaapov — 
 DV. The Vulgate uses two distinct expressions. The 
 
 first in v. 27 is rendered ''dies expiationum” while in v. 28 the 
 Vulgate reads "dies propitiationisEvidently the Vulgate 
 finds both ideas expressed in iitXaapo?. 
 
 What now must be the conclusion? Does {ei)LXdaKe(xOai mean 
 to expiate or to propitiate, or to expiate and to propitiate? The 
 conclusion must be that both elements are fundamentally and sub¬ 
 stantially always included; if sin was removed then God was again 
 
 ^ Op. cit., 208. 
 
 “ Vigouroux, La Sainte Bible, 1, 597. 
 
60 
 
 rendered favorable and propitious to tbe Israelites. The act of 
 expiation is followed by propitiation. Modern authors, to a cer¬ 
 tain extent, recognize the double element, and the following quo¬ 
 tation will be in place. After examining the verb "'i0p and its 
 
 derivatives in the LXX, S. K. Driver concludes: What, lastly, 
 it may be asked, is the most prominent idea expressed by hipper? 
 The ideas of expiation, purification from sin, propitiation, and 
 ^ at-one-ment or reconciliation, are intimately connected; one and 
 the same rite effects them all; and all, if not included in, are at 
 least immediately suggested by, kipper ’b We maintain that these 
 ideas are not merely suggested, but are essentially and necessarily 
 included. Deissmann is therefore wrong wTen he insists that the 
 context must decide whether the meaning be expiation or propitia¬ 
 tion. Eegarding IXacrT^piov we conclude that the word originated 
 in the LXX, and that it contains the notions of a) expiation and 
 b) propitiation', these are accomplished c) hy the sacrificial Mood 
 being sprinkled d) on a holy and special place e) where God was 
 present. The IXaury^piov was not the means whereby expiation and 
 propitiation were effected, but the place where these acts were 
 performed through the sprinkling of the sacrificial blood. The 
 means of expiation and propitiation is expressed by (e^)tAao-jao?. 
 The 0. T. IXacTTTjpLov in itself did not expiate and propitiate, neither 
 did the sacrificial blood in itself bring about these effects; but they 
 resulted only then when the blood was sprinkled on the IXao-Tpptov :— 
 the local connection between the sprinkling of the blood and the 
 iXaarrjpLov was necessary. This local notion, however, lies not in 
 the blood but in IXaargpiov. In the LXX, then, we have the agency 
 that was operating between early profane Greek literature and the 
 idiomatic phraseology of the Fathers. How influential this agency 
 was becomes evident from a study of the word in Jewish tradition. 
 
 2. In Jewish Tradition 
 
 The Talmud and Jewish Atonement day customs offer inter¬ 
 esting and important testimony in proving the traditional double 
 element in ‘IDD and its derivatives. 
 
 a) The Talmud 
 
 Sins of man against God the day of Atonement expiates — 
 
 ERE, V, 658, art. Expiation and Atonement (Hebrew). 
 
 ** All Talmudic references are taken from Lazarus Goldschmidt, Der 
 Babylonische Talmud, VIII volumes. 
 
61 
 
 “ICDO □'’“I'lDDH but the sins of man against his fellow man 
 
 it does not expiate—until they become reconciled.^® In 
 the same tract we read that death and the day of Atonement make 
 expiation—The rabbis also ordered the Jew to pray 
 before entering a bath house, lest destruction and sin overtake him. 
 If he should unfortunately happen to sin then he must pray that 
 his death be an expiation—rTlDD for all his sins.^® 
 
 When the son of R. Simeon ben Shetah was falsely accused and 
 condemned to death, he said: If I am guilty may my death not 
 be an expiation—for all my sins; but if I am innocent 
 may my death serve as expiation—Mention is also made 
 of one rabbi who would offer himself as an expiation—n"lDD for 
 R. Hija and his sons.®® Such examples show that the rabbis con¬ 
 sidered death as an expiation for sin and as a means of effecting 
 propitiation. This is shown more distinctly in the following ex¬ 
 ample. According to Num. xxv, 25-28 if one was guilty of man¬ 
 slaughter and had fled to a city of refuge, he had to dwell there 
 until the death of the High Priest. Thereafter he was again free 
 to return to his own country. The rabbis proposed the question 
 whether the slayer made expiation—for his crime by 
 being exiled. They answered in the negative and held that the 
 slayer obtained expiation—only through the death of the 
 High Priest.®^ His death must be considered as a sin-offering by 
 which the sins of his people are not only expiated but God is also 
 propitiated and reconciliation is effected. 
 
 This brief study shows that in the Talmud stress is laid upon 
 the point of expiation whereas the element of propitiation hardly 
 finds express mention. But the latter idea is necessarily implied 
 for, by desiring to expiate their sins, the Jews sought also to pro¬ 
 pitiate God and become reconciled to Him; otherwise their act of 
 expiation would have been meaningless. Such is also the view of 
 G. F. Moore ®^ on the meaning of in the Talmud: The 
 
 verb kipper and its derivatives are used, precisely as in the OT, 
 in the sense ^ to make propitiation, expiation, procure remission ’ ’k 
 
 b) Atonement Hay Customs of the Middle Ages 
 No less illuminating are the customs of the Jews in the middle 
 
 Joma 85**. 
 
 « Ibid. 
 
 Joma 86^. 
 
 ^ Berakh. 60®. 
 
 Sanh., 44'’. 
 
 "'’Sukkah, 20h 
 “Makkoth, IP. 
 
 EBi, IV, 4226, art. Sacrifice. 
 
62 
 
 ages. Weigand says of the word happores that it is Jiidische 
 Aussprache des rahbinisch-hehr. kapporeth f. ^ Versdhnung, Siihn- 
 opf er ^ He then states that on the Atonement day the Jews 
 
 sought to place their sins upon a non-Jew, saying to him: ‘^‘^Sei 
 du meine kapporeth! which means, mein Suhnopfer, was dann 
 den Sinn hatte: Stirh du fiir mich zur Versbhnung mit Gott^k 
 In preparation for the day of Atonement, as Sanders relates, 
 the Jews were wont to purchase a rooster als eine ^ Kaporoh ’ 
 (gleichsam ein Suhnopfer)^k He adds that they would swing the 
 fowl over their head three times with the wish that the punish¬ 
 ments due them for their sins be transferred to it. Then the 
 rooster was killed. K. Kohler also speaks of this custom and 
 adds that, while swinging the cock around the head, the Jew re¬ 
 peated three times in Hebrew the following: This be my sub¬ 
 stitute, my vicarious offering, my atonement. This cock (or hen) 
 shall meet death, but I shall find a long and pleasant life of 
 peace! ’k The fowl, Kohler remarks elsewhere,®® was to be 
 killed in place of the Jew or Jewess who might be guilty of death 
 by his or her sin ^k This custom, he adds, shows a deep-rooted 
 desire for some form of atoning sacrifice ^k These practices are 
 also mentioned by Eisenmenger who writes that during the act 
 of swinging the fowl, besides the other formula, the Jew recites 
 w. 13, 17, 20 and 21 of Ps. cvii and 23 and 24 of Job xxxiii. 
 He informs us also that if a Jew was too poor to purchase a cock, 
 he went out early in the morning and, giving three or four pence 
 to the first Christian he met, he asked him to be his capporo, which 
 means: “ Ich soil sterben und habe gesiindigt, fahre vor (fiir) 
 mich in die Holle, vor (fiir) Yergebung meiner Siinden und sterbe 
 vor (fiir) mich^k®^ Again, it is customary with the Jews on the 
 Atonement day, according to the same author, when meeting a 
 Christian “ das Wort Cappara oder Capporo, welches eine 
 
 Versiihnung heisset . . . gegen denselben ausstossen ’^,®® wishing 
 
 ” Deutsches Worterbuch, I, 987. 
 
 M Worterbuch d. deut. Sprache, I, 866. 
 
 VII, 435, art. Kapparah. Cf. Bernstein, Jiid. Sprichworter, 31. 
 He explains as “ Kapuru, kapurojss, ‘ Siihne ’. Hahn oder Henne, 
 
 welche am Vorabend des Versohnungstages, nach altem Branch, als sym- 
 bolisches Suhnopfer dargebracht werden. Dieser Akt heisst: kapurojss 
 schlugen 
 
 II, 282, art. Atonement. 
 
 ^ Entdecktes Judenthum, II, 149-150. 
 
 Op. cit., I, 628. 
 
63 
 
 thereby to have the Christian bear their sins and become expiation 
 for the Jew. There is yet another practice mentioned by M. 
 Caster.®® He learned from the Samaritans that, whenever they 
 kill an animal or a fowl during the ten penitential days (from Hew 
 Year to the day of Atonement), they, in addition to the usual 
 blessing, repeat the three following words: 
 
 ^ to atone, and to atone, he shall atone ^ These are evidently 
 taken he adds, as sin-offerings preparatory to the Day of 
 Atonement 
 
 In these customs and traditions the double notion in 'IBD has 
 
 found its way through all centuries up to the present time. And 
 it is not correct to state, as Deissmann does, in reference to these 
 customs, dass ihm (i. e. kapporeth) der Begriff Siihnung ge- 
 blieben ist As stated before, the idea of expiation appears, 
 indeed, to predominate; but the other idea of propitiation is never 
 excluded, on the contrary, it is always presupposed. Therefore 
 sin, God, and men are the objects of “10p and the derivatives. 
 
 We add two striking corollaries. The ancient Babylonian and 
 the Arabic rituals of expiation offer close parallels to 'IBD in the 
 
 O.T. 
 
 Corollary 1. According to Zimmern the Babylonian technical 
 term for expiate is “kuppuru (Inf. Piel, mit dem entsprechenden 
 Substantiv takpirtu) d. i. abwischen This terminus technicus, 
 he declares, is identical “^^mit hebr. “103, der technischen Bezeich- 
 
 nung fiir suhnen ^ in der Priestersprache, fiir das es auch die im 
 Hebraischen selbst wohl nicht mehr durchgeflihlte Grundbedeutung 
 ^abwischen^ sichert’h He adds that the expiatory act is per¬ 
 formed for persons as well as places and things. In this ritual 
 the idea of expiation is not the only one contained; the hope of 
 placating the gods and of becoming reconciled is the inseparable 
 companion of expiation. 
 
 Corollary 2. Of interest also is Lagarde’s suggestive study of 
 the Arabic parallel, which dates from the time of the Koran. 
 Lagarde shows ‘^dass dem hebraischen n“i0D ein arabisches als 
 
 technischer Ausdruck der Rechtskunde alltagliches kaffarat formell 
 
 ‘“’ERE, XI, 28, art. Sacrifice. 
 
 '"Op. cit., 206. 
 
 601-602. Cf. also Langdon, ExpT (1911), 324 and ERE, V, 
 640, art. Expiation and Atonement (Babylonian). 
 
64 
 
 haarscharf entspricht He explains what the legal kaftarat of 
 the Arabs is, and a few examples will suffice. “ Wer ein nadr 
 Gellibde oder ein Versprechen ahsichtlich unerfiillt gelassen hat, 
 miisz eine kalfarat [=n"10D] erlegen’k The kaffarat is likewise 
 
 incumbent upon him der seine Gattin heschimpft, der unabsicht- 
 lich einen Menschen . . . getotet (oder etwa dnrch seine Hach- 
 lassigkeit) den Tod eines Menschen veranlaszt, der nicht regel- 
 recht gefastet, der im Eamadan gar nicht gefastet hat’k The 
 legal expiation for such offences was effected either by the setting 
 free of a slave, by fasting, or by alms giving to the needy.®^ Even 
 to the present time, as we learn from E. W. Lane,®^“ this practice 
 is in vogue at Mohammedan burials in Egypt. Thus at the funeral 
 of a person of rank or wealth, three skins of water and as many 
 camel loads of bread are brought to the place of burial and are 
 distributed to the poor who flock thither in great numbers. 
 ^^This custome,^^ according to Lane whom Lagarde quotes, is 
 called el-kaff arah ^ (or the expiation); being supposed to expi¬ 
 ate some of the minor sins (termed gagair) of the deceased, but 
 not great sins (kebair) Lagarde^s conclusion is as follows: 
 
 Ich komme allerdings infolge meiner Anschauungen immer 
 wieder zu dem Schlusse, dass ri“;!05 Pentateuche die Gesetzes- 
 
 lade bedeute, sofern an sie die Yersohnung gekniipft war ’k^'^ 
 From the examples it can be seen that there is always an offence 
 or sin committed, and expiation demanded. This act of expiating 
 includes also the desire of placating and becoming reconciled. 
 Hence Deissmann^s statement that kapporeth bedeutet wie 
 kaffarat Suhnung” must be corrected to include the idea of pro¬ 
 pitiation, since with the desire of expiation goes the wish to 
 propitiate and become reconciled. The one necessarily presupposes 
 the other. 
 
 The examples of IXdcrKeaOaL —^0p in Jewish literature and in 
 
 'he parallels of the Arabic and Babylonian rituals of purgation 
 plainly show the presence of the essential elements of expiation 
 and propitiation. But it is to be observed that, while these two 
 
 ®^Uebersicht iiber die Bildiing der N'omina, 237. We transliterate the 
 Arabic words. Cf. Margolioiith, ERE, V, 664, art. Expiation and Atone¬ 
 ment (Muslim). 
 
 “ Op. cit., 233. 
 
 Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, II, 268. 
 
 Op. cit., 236. “ Op. cit., 203. 
 
 Op. cit., 237. 
 
65 
 
 fundamental ideas remain, the notion of locality in Ikaar^pLov — 
 n ‘^05 has disappeared in later Jewish tradition. The reason for 
 
 this disappearance is obvious. After the destruction of the temple 
 the Jews had no place par excellence for carrying out these acts; 
 hence, in Jewish tradition, IXacrrypLov —gradually lost its 
 
 element of locality. At the time of the LXX, however, the factor 
 of locality w^as considered so important, that it caused the LXX 
 writers to coin the special word IXaar^pLov which w^as unknown to 
 the Greek world before this time. Certainly, profane Greek litera¬ 
 ture had the elements of expiation and propitiation in IXdaKeaSaL, 
 but it lacked the substantive Ikaar^piov with its designation of 
 locality. On the other hand, patristic writers retain the elements 
 of expiation and propitiation in IkdaKea-Oai, they know of and use 
 the substantive IXoatt^plov, and they clearly show that the birth¬ 
 place of this substantive was the LXX. 
 
 The question now arises: which factor or v-hich development 
 caused the transfer of the LXX word IXoxtttjplov with its notion of 
 locality into the Greek world at large? The answer is Philo, or 
 better, that movement of thought which is represented most dis¬ 
 tinctly by Philo, namely, Jewish-Hellenic speculation. 
 
 III. In Philo 
 
 Between the profane and biblical Greek world of thought stands 
 Philo (25 B. C.), well acquainted with both. He forms, as it were, 
 the bridge upon which the two worlds meet and become, to a cer¬ 
 tain extent, amalgamated. What we have observed, therefore, in 
 profane Greek and the LXX concerning the double notion applies 
 also to the meaning of IXdaKeo-OLa as used by Philo. In SP. Legum 
 Allegoriarum III, he speaks of the Atonement day which expiates 
 for the souls of us who have done evil — KaKwv rgidiv ra? 
 IXadKerai because, when we afflict and deprive ourselves of what 
 pleases us, then God becomes propitious—tAew tov 0 €oi/ 
 in De Abrahamo we hear of propitiating with fear the royal and 
 despotic power so as to ward off chastisement — rw rrjv r/ye/xo- 
 
 VLKTjv Kol SeaTTOTLKrjv IXacTKOjJLevov i^ovalav Again, ill Pe MonCLTchicL 
 II: “God is propitiated by men and in turn He offers and grants 
 favors to men — dvOpMTroL plv tAdo-KwvTe? ©edr, ©ed<? de rd? yd/atras 
 
 > A ' > ' ' ~ fiO 
 
 avup(D7roL<s . . . optyrj Km • 
 
 Opera, I, 121. 
 
 Opera, II, 20. 
 
 Opera, II, 230. 
 
66 
 
 Philo occupies a prominent place in the IXacrr^pLov problem. He 
 uses the word several times and, what is of specific import, he 
 leaves no doubt that the 0. T. is the source for this use. In Be 
 Vita Mos. 7/7/® he states that the ark within the Holy of Holies 
 had a covering and this covering was like to that which is called 
 in the Bible IXadTr^piov — ^ Ki/3iOT6<; ..,•>)? eTrt^e/xa, waavel Trw/xa, to 
 
 Xeyopcevov ev tepats jSl/SXoi^ IXaaTrjpiov. This tXaarrjpLov, he continues, 
 physically ((/)oo-iKWTepoi/) typified the merciful power of God— Trj<i 
 iXeio rov ©eof iSwdpeojs, and morally {rjOiKMrepov) the will to put 
 aside vain and haughty opinions; further on in the same work we 
 find again, rd Se eTrlOepua to TTponayopevopievov iXacrTrjpiov. Mention 
 may be made here of the indirect allusion to a locality where cer¬ 
 tain means obtained the mercy of God and w^here moral influence 
 was exerted. In Philo^s mind the LXX IXadrr^pLov was an al¬ 
 together peculiar designation. In Be Projugis 19,'^'^ we read that 
 the covering of the ark which Moses calls IXadTgpiov —to iTtlOepua rijs 
 Kt^corov, KaXel 3’ avrov IXodrypLov —represents the merciful power of 
 God The cherubim are the images of the creative and kingly 
 power, while the Divine Word which is above these and which 
 does not come into any visible appearance, in as much as it is not 
 like to any of the things that come under the external senses, is 
 itself an image of God Proof for this he finds in Ex. xxv, 22 
 that God would speak to Moses from over the propitiatory. Here 
 also we can see that Philo considered IXaa-rypLov as a special desig¬ 
 nation for the place where the Divine Word manifested itself. In 
 Quis Rerum Biv. HaeresP Philo quotes Ex. xxv^ 22 for evidence 
 that as God spoke to Moses from the propitiatory in the midst of 
 the two cherubim, so does He also stand above His creative and 
 chastening power. Be Cherubim., 5/^ Kal yap dvTt7rpoo-<o7ra <^acriv elvat, 
 vcvovra 7rpo? to IXaxTTrjpiov eTepot?, is a dear allusion to Ex. XXV, 20 
 where we read that the cherubim stand face to face inclining 
 toward the IXadrrjpLov. The word therefore expresses the locality 
 where the presence of God was made known. Just as God spoke 
 to Moses from over the propitiatory, so God stands between His 
 powers, that of creating and governing, and by these powers His 
 existence and presence are made manifest to the world. Sum¬ 
 marizing we say that, according to Philo, the 0. T. IXao-Trjpiov was 
 the place par excellence where God manifested His presence and 
 His expiating and propitiating power. With certainty it may be 
 
 Opera, II, 149-150. Opera, I, 496. 
 
 Opera, I, 561. Opera, I, 143. 
 
67 
 
 stated that the notions of expiation and propitiation in the word 
 iXao-T^pLov were crystallized for the hellenic world by Jewish influ¬ 
 ence. The substantive Ikaar^piov may be considered as a kind of 
 syncretism which took place by Jewish-hellenic philosophical specu¬ 
 lation. Any doubt concerning the correctness of this view will 
 disappear when we study the fuller development of the word in 
 the hellenic world under the influence of the LXX. 
 
 IV. In Post-LXX Times 
 
 We have already given due credit to Deissmann for throwing 
 new light on the iXaa-rrjpLov problem. He has called attention to 
 new applications of the term and it is necessary to study the mate¬ 
 rial he presents in order to see whether or not his conclusions can 
 stand in the light of the present investigation. After examining 
 all the applications of the term known to him, Deissmann ex¬ 
 presses the result in the following words: An alien Stellen be- 
 deutet IXaarrjpLov Versohnungs- oder Siihnungsgegenstand, noch 
 allgemeiner zutreffend ein Versohnendes oder Siihnendes’b Die 
 Specialbedeutung oder richtiger die Specialanwendung des Wortes 
 ist also stets eine okkasionelle 
 
 If we recall a) that the two fundamental notions of expiation 
 and propitiation were always found attached to the root of 
 IXdaKea-Oaif b) that Sacrifice or offering appeared as a constant com¬ 
 panion idea of IXdo-KeaOm, c) that so far the substantive had an 
 emphatic local signification, then, in view of these facts, it seems 
 altogether impossible that IXao-TrjpLov should not have a fixed mean¬ 
 ing. And it is wholly improbable that these well-established 
 notions should suddenly, or in the course of time, have given way 
 to the mood and fancy of circumstances to signify sometimes this 
 and sometimes that. Before submitting post-LXX material to a 
 detailed examination two preliminary observations must be made. 
 
 1 . The meaning of words ending in rrjpiov (or rrjp- It is 
 
 of no small importance for our problem that words ending in rrjpLov 
 show the characteristic tendency to denote a locality. The subjoined 
 list of such words is taken from the lexicon of Lid dell-Scott,’’'’" 
 and the meaning of each word is quoted ad verhum. We have 
 arranged the list into three groups: the first containing those 
 words whose meaning is given as ^ place', the second containing 
 
 Op. eit., 198. ” Greek-Englisli Lexicon. 
 
 Of. Robertson, Grammar of Grer^k N. T., 154. 
 
68 
 
 those words whose meaning unmistakably points to ^ locality and 
 the third whose meaning is given as ^ means ^ instrument etc. 
 
 Exactly 48 words ending in r^piov are mentioned in the dic¬ 
 tionary with the express signification of ^ a place 
 
 dytao-riyptov, to, a holy place^ sanctuary. 
 ayvevT^pLov, to, a place of purification. 
 aywvixTT^pLov, to, a place of assembly. 
 aOpoLVTypLov, TO, a muster-place. 
 aKpoaTypiov, to, a place of audience. 
 aXeiTTTypLov, to, a place for anointing. 
 apaWyTypiov, to, a place of contest. 
 
 avoKapLTTTypLov, TO, a place to walk backwards and forwards in. 
 avoirawjTypiov, to, a place of rest. 
 aprjTrjpLov, to, a place for prayer. 
 
 ^aiTTKTTypLov, TO, a bathing-place. 
 
 yvpivao-Trjpiov, to, the public place where athletic exercises were 
 practised. 
 
 SeiKTrjpLov, TO, a place for shewing. 
 
 epipmTypLov, to, a place to live in. 
 
 evrj^yTypiov, to, a place of amusement. 
 
 epyacTTypiov, to, any place in which work is done. 
 
 evvoTypLov, to, a sleeping-place. 
 
 yPyTypLov, to, a place where young people meet. 
 
 yXuKTTypLov, TO, a place for sunning oneself. 
 
 OprjCTKevTypLov, to, a place of worship. 
 iiroiTypiov, TO, a pressing-place. 
 
 KaOapixTTypLov, to, a place for purifying. 
 
 KaTaa-KoirevTTjpLOv, to, a look-Out place. 
 
 KXypoiTypLov, TO, at Athens, a place in the theatre, where the magis¬ 
 trates and dicasts sat; the place where elections by lot were 
 held. 
 
 Koip^yTypiov, TO, a sleeping-room, a burial-place. 
 
 KovKTTypiov, TO, a place covered with dust, hence a rolling place. 
 KpviTTrjpLov, TO, a lurklug-place or a dungeon. 
 
 Kpvo)T7)pLov, TO, B, wmo-cooler, a cool shady place. 
 
 XoyidTypLov, TO, the place at Athens w^here the XoyLo-Tal met; a 
 place for philosophical discussions. 
 picXeTyTrjpLov, to, a place for practice. 
 jxKrOoiTrjpLov, to, a hiring place. 
 oiKTjTrjpLov, TO, a dwelllng-place. 
 
 olwvLaTrjpLov, to, a place for watching the flight of birds. 
 
69 
 
 opyaoTTTjpLOV, ro, for opyiadTr^piov a place of OrgieS. 
 oppirjTTjptovy TOf a starting place. 
 
 TraTrjT^pLov, to, a place where grapes are trodden. 
 
 Tro\epLrjTT]pLov, to, the place from which a general carries on his 
 operations. 
 
 TrpaT^piov, TO, a place for selling. 
 
 TTwXrjT^pLov, TO, a place where wares are sold. 
 
 (jrjpuavrrjpiov, to, a place for coining money. 
 
 KjToXvcTT^pLov, TO, a place where the priests attired themselves or 
 the statues of the gods. 
 
 crxoXadTTjpLov, to, a place for passing leisure in. 
 
 T€Xe<TTypLov, TO, Si pluce for initiation. 
 vTToSeKT^pLov, TO, Si placo of rofugo or a reservoir. 
 
 VTToSvT^piOV, TO, V. SUb VTToSeKTypLOV. 
 
 (f>povTL(TT^pLov, TO, Si placo for moditation, a thinking-shop. 
 Xp-qpxiTLaT^pLov, TO, a place for transacting business, a seat of judg¬ 
 ment, a counting-house, a place for the oracle. 
 ijrvKTypLov, TO, a wine-cooler, a cool shady place. 
 
 The second group comprises 87 words whose meaning plainly 
 refers to a locality or place. 
 
 aio-6r)T7]pLov, to, an organ of sense. 
 aKeaTvpiov, to, a tailor’s shop. 
 aKovaTi]pLov, to, an audience chamber. 
 
 aKpoiT^pLov, TO, any topmost or prominent part, a cape, pro¬ 
 montory. 
 
 apivvTTjpLov, TO, a defence, bulwark. 
 
 avayv(j)(TT^piov, to, a lectern, reading-desk. 
 
 avoKXivT^pLov, TO, Si recumbent chair. 
 
 aTToSvT^piov, TO, an undressing room. 
 
 apLCTTrjT^pLov, TO, a refectory. 
 
 acTKrjT^pLov, TO, a hermitage or monastery. 
 
 avXrjT^pLov, TO, a court-house. 
 
 avXixjTTjpLov, TO, an abode, stall. 
 
 a(f>€TypLov, TO (sc. ttAoiW), the outlet of a seaport. 
 
 a<l)oS£VT^pLov, TO, a privy, a close-stool. 
 
 ^axTavujT^pLov, to, the c|uestion-chamber. 
 
 PovXevT^ptov, TO, the council-chamber, senate-house. 
 yeixTTrjpiov, to, a cup for tasting with. 
 
 SeinvrjT^pLov, to. Si dining-room. 
 
70 
 
 SeKarevrypLov, to, the tenths-officG;, custom-house. 
 
 SeapLOiT^pLov, TO, a prison. 
 
 SiaLTrjT^piov, TO, in pi. the dwelling rooms of a house. 
 
 ^LKamT^piov, TO, a house of correction. 
 
 ’hiKOATT^piov, TO, a court of Justice. 
 
 SiaMT^pLov, TO, the temple of Zeu? "^oiTT^p on the Acropolis at 
 Athens. 
 
 lKKXrj(Tia<jT7]piov, TO, the hall of the iKKXrjaia, a church. 
 iK7rL€aT7]pLOV (sc. opyavov), to, a press. 
 eXaiaTi^pLov, to, an olive-press. 
 
 €VKTr]piov, TO, an oratory. 
 
 €v<joxr)TT]pLov, TO, a banqueting-house. 
 e\f/r]TT]pLov, TO, a dish or pan for boiling. 
 
 ^r)Tr]T^pLOV, TO, =/3acravLaTijpLOV. 
 
 'qOrjT^piov, TO, a strainer, colander, esp. a wine-strainer. 
 ■^(TvxcKnnjpLov, to, the retreat of an -^avxpxjTr)^. 
 
 6eo>prjTT]pLov, TO, a seat in a theatre. 
 
 6vpLLaT7]pLov, TO, Si vessel for burning incense, a censer. 
 
 OvonanTijpLov, to, an altar. 
 
 OvT^pLOV, TO, = OvdiaCTT^pLOV. 
 
 ISpwT^pLov, TO, Si sweating-bath. 
 
 KaduTT^pLOV, TO, Si Seat. 
 
 KaTaXvTijpLov, TO, an inn, lodging. 
 kXlvtijplov, to , a couch, sofa. 
 
 KoXaaT^pLov, to, a house of correction. 
 
 KOTvaviaT^pLov, TO, a vessel for braying, a mortar. 
 
 KoapirjTTjpiov, TO, a dressing-room. 
 
 KpacT^piov, TO, a rack, manger. 
 
 KpaTTjpLov, TO, a mixing vessel, esp. a large bowl, in which tlie 
 wine was mixed with water. 
 
 KpiT^piov, TO, Si court of Judgment, tribunal. 
 
 KvjSevTyjpiov, to, a gambling-house. 
 
 K(ji)6o)VL<TTT]pLov, TO, Si bauqueting house. 
 krpT^piov, TO, a retreat or nest of robbers. 
 kovT^piov, TO, a washing or bathing-tub. 
 piovaGT^piov, TO, a solitary dwelling, a monastery. 
 
 TraihevT^pLOv, to, a school. 
 
 7r€LpaT7]pLov, TO, Si pirate’s nest. 
 
 TreacrevTTjpiov, to, an astronomical table of the Egyptians, divided 
 into squares like a draught-hoard. 
 
71 
 
 TnedTTjpLov, (sc. opyavov), to, a press. 
 
 TTLCTT^pLov, TO, a dimkiiig-troiigh for cattle. 
 
 TrXaaT7]pLov, to, a work-shop. 
 
 TTOTT^pLov, TO, a driiikiiig-cup, wine-cup. 
 
 TTOTicrTrjpLov, TO, a drinking-trough for cattle. 
 
 7rpo7roXepL7)T7]pLov, TO, a bastion^ outwork. 
 
 Trpocf)vXaKT^pLov, to, an outpost, guard. 
 
 (TaKekiCTTy^pLov, to, a strainer, colander. 
 
 <TK07revTypLov, TO, a beacon-hill. 
 
 (TO(f>L(TTi]pLov, TO, a soplilst’s school. 
 orpePXijoTTjpLov, to, a rack. 
 a~vvaKT7]pLov, TO, an assembly. 
 
 a-(fxiyija(jTi^pLov, to, a bowl for catching the blood of victims in 
 sacrifices. 
 
 <T(f)aLpi(TT7]pLov, TO, a ball-coui’t. 
 aoiffipovujTT^pLov, TO, £L house of correction. 
 
 Ta^Xio-Typiov, TO, a gaming-house. 
 
 TapnevTypiov, TO, a treasury, a magazine, storehouse. 
 
 Tpvyr]T^pLov, TO, a wine-press. 
 
 vytaaT^piov, to, a hospital. 
 
 vXLdTypLov, TO, a filter, strainer, colander. 
 
 VTTOKpaT^pLov, TO, tlie stancl of a npai f}p. 
 
 (fiOLTrjT^pLOV, TO, £L School. 
 
 cf>ovevT^pLov, TO, a slaughter-house. 
 
 (pvyaSevT^pLov, to, a city of refuge. 
 
 (f)vXaKTi]pLov, TO, a guarded post, a fort or castle. 
 cf>v(TrjT7ipLov, TO, a blow-liole, Lat. spiraculum. 
 
 (fiVTcvT^pLov, TO, SL nurscry or plantation. 
 
 (f>o)TL(jTT]pLov, TO, a baptistory. 
 
 XaXKcvT^pLov, TO, a smith’s shop, forge, smithy. 
 
 ^prjCTT^pLov, TO, an oracle, i. e., the seat of an oracle. 
 
 XiovevT^piov, TO, a smelting-furnace. 
 ipvxpi^Typf'Ov, TO, a cooler. 
 
 Liddell-Scott mention 71 words ending in T^piov that express, 
 either means, instrument or other meanings. 
 
 ayvKTT^pLov, TO, a means of purifying. 
 
 a-KvqTTjpiov (sc. <f>dppxiKov), to, a drug to cause abortion. 
 
72 
 
 aXf^rjTvpiov, (sc. <f>dpiMLKov) f rd, a remedy, medicine. 
 
 dXKTrjpiov, TO, a help, antidote. 
 
 dfxrjT^pLov, TO, a sickle. 
 
 dfjLTTVKTypLovy TO, Si hoise’s head band. 
 
 dva/SaTypLov (sc. Upov), to, a sacrifice for a fair voyage. 
 
 dvacnraoTT^pLov, to, a machine for raising a portcullis. 
 
 d7rocf>0eyKTT]pLoVf to, an utterance. 
 
 ■yopiijxjDTypLov, to, a way of bolting. 
 
 SapxLo-Tppiov, TO, an instrument for taming. 
 
 ^r]Xr]T7]piov (sc. (f)dppxiKov), to, poison. 
 
 BuSaKT^piov, TO, a proof. 
 
 BoKLpja(TTT]pLov, TO, Si tcst, mcans of trial. 
 
 BpaaTTjpiov, TO, activity, energy. 
 iyepT^piov, to, an excitement. 
 
 eXaT^pLov (sc. (pdppxiKov), to, an Opening medicine. 
 ipi^aT^piov (sc. /xeAo?), to, the air to which the soldiers marched, ' 
 a march. 
 
 iicTacTTypiov, TO, a test, proof. 
 
 eTTLpaT^pLov, TO, a festival to celebrate the advent of a god. 
 emKpLTTjpiov, TO, determination. 
 
 €vcf>pavT^piov, TO, a means of cheering. 
 
 ^evKTTjpiov, TO, a yoke. 
 
 OeXKTTjpiov, TO, a charm, spell, enchantment. 
 
 OepLCTT^piov, TO, a reaping-hook. 
 
 OoLvarrjpLov, to, a meal, feast, banquet. 
 uaTrjpiov, TO, SL mode of cure, cure. 
 
 KaOeTrjpLov (sc. (fyappuiKov), to , a plug of lint, pessary. , 
 KaXvTTT^piov, TO, Si covering. 
 
 KaTaTravdTrjpiov, to, a means of putting to rest. 
 
 KavTijpiov, TO, Si branding iron. 
 
 KevTTjTTjpiov, TO, Si prickor, awl. 
 
 KLvrjT^ptov, TO, a ladle. 
 
 KXaBevTTjpiov, TO, a pruning knife. 
 
 KXadT^pLov, TO, a knife for dressing vines. 
 
 KXv(jT7)piov, TO, a clyster-pipe, syringe. 
 
 KXoiaTTJpiOV, TO, a clue. 
 
 Kpepxio'TijpLov, TO, a drop in a necklace. 
 
 KvrjT^pLov, TO, aiding delivery. 
 
 Xa^evT7]pLov, TO, a stone-cutter’s tool. 
 
 XiKpLrjT^pLov, TO, a winnowing-fan or shovel. 
 
73 
 
 lMi\6aKTT]pLov, TO, aiiy emolHeiit, a plaster, poultice. 
 fxvar^pLov, to, a mystery or secret doctrine. 
 vLKrjT^pLov (sc. aOXov), TO, the prize of victory. 
 
 6wxt<TT7]pLov, TO, Si nail-knifc or scissors. 
 opKiapLOT^pLov, TO, an oatli. 
 
 6pvKT7]pLov, TO, a pickaxc or any sharp iron tool for digging. 
 6<Tcf)pavTypiov (sc. (jiappuaKov)f to, strong scent used to revive per¬ 
 sons fainting. 
 
 TreSop-pavT^pcov, to, defilement. 
 
 TreprjTypLov, to, a borer. 
 
 TrepLppavT^pLov, to, an utensil for besprinkling. 
 
 Traypaa-T^piov, to. Si lid. 
 
 pavTicTTrjpiov, to, an instrument for sprinkling, a whisk. 
 
 piTTiCrTT^pLOV, TO, Si fan. 
 
 poya-T^pLov, TO, a strengthening medicine. 
 
 <ruiXL<TT^pLov, TO, Si bridle-fiit, which is apt to be covered with foam. 
 vKaXio-T^pLov, TO, an instrument for stirring or hoeing, a hoe. 
 
 OTKeTTTTJpLOV) TO, Si prOOf. 
 
 <TTr)OL(TT^pLov, TO, the poitrel of a war-horse. 
 
 <TTp<3iTTjpLov, TO, a rafter laid upon the bearing beam. 
 <Tcf)payL(TTT]pLov, TO, Si seal, stamp. 
 
 (TxpxTT^ptov, TO, a lancet. 
 oxeT^piov, TO, a check, remedy. 
 
 >TayLaT^pLov, to, a ration. 
 
 TeKpJqpiov, TO, a sure sign or token. 
 
 TpLTTT^pLov, TO, a rubbing tool. 
 
 <l>p€v<oTT]pLov, TO, Si moans of instruction. 
 
 XapaKT^pLov, TO, an instrument for marking or graving. 
 yapuTTTjpLov, TO, a thank-offering. 
 
 XpifTT^piov, TO, an unguent, a bottle of ointments. 
 if/aXT^pLovy TO, a stringed instrument. 
 
 Other substantives denoting locality, not found in Liddell-Scott, 
 are aTravTT^TTjpiov, TO, deversorium/® a resting place, SeapLevTi^piov, t 6 ,^^ 
 a prison, KoXkvpLOTrjpLov, t6,'^^ a place for exchanging money, kvk- 
 XevT^pLov, To,’^^ a circular place, airo/SaT^piov, to',®® a landing place. 
 The sum total is 211 substantives ending in TTjptov; of these 140 
 
 Moulton-Milligan, Vocabulary of Greek Test., I, 53. 
 
 ^^Op. cit., II, 143. ■'“Op. cit., IV, 363. 
 
 Op. cit., IV, 353. Jos. Flavius, Antiq. I, 3, 5. 
 
74 
 
 designate a locality. This demonstrates that it is characteristic 
 for words ending in r^piov to signify locality. Of course the 
 possibility is obvious that the substantive IXoxtttjplov could follow 
 the minority where the local notion is either not clear or not at 
 all contained. But the probability exists also that it should follow 
 the general tendency of words ending in r^piov. 
 
 2. TAcio-r^piov and the LXX. We have observed that lXa(TT7]piov 
 does not occur in profane Greek before the time of the LXX and 
 this shows that the word must be a product of the LXX. And in 
 the LXX it signifies locality and nothing else. Does it seem pos¬ 
 sible that this word, devoid of its original meaning which it re¬ 
 ceived from those who coined it, was given to the Greek world with 
 a different meaning ? Indeed, this would be a strange phenomenon. 
 On the other hand, it would be entirely within the line of a natural 
 development if the term, in the Greek world, retained that original 
 meaning given it by its makers; and this the more so, since by 
 this development it would follow the general characteristic of 
 words ending in r^ptov, many of which were used in profane 
 Greek long before IXaudrypiov arrived there. 
 
 A. The Former Evidence in a New Light—Factors Misunderstood 
 
 We noAv proceed to the examination of material presented by 
 Deissmann. Here already it may be remarked that the examples 
 of IXacTTrjpiov in post-LXX literature clearly demonstrate that the 
 local notion attached to the word by the LXX remains inseparably 
 connected with it throughout its further history. Therefore we 
 can say: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Deissmann offers applica¬ 
 tions of IXao-TTjpLov in reference to 
 
 1 . The Ark of Xoe 
 
 Symmachus, in his translation of Gen. vi^ 15, does not follow 
 the LXX in naming the ark of Noe ki^ojtos, but twice in the same 
 verse he describes the ark as a IXao-TrjpLov —‘^‘^Bam [the ark] . . . 
 arcae; (to) iXacrrrjpiov . . . (rov) IXacrTrjpLov The meaning of 
 IXadTTjpiov stands out here in its original realistic force. The ark was 
 not a votive offering nor the means of reconciliation, but naturally 
 
 ” Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, I. 23. 
 
75 
 
 the place where salvation was offered. The local notion is the 
 only possible one to be attached to the term. Deissniann cannot 
 escape the forceful expression of the original local notion. He 
 calls this application sehr bedeutsam and assigns as reason, 
 offenbar deshalb, weil sie der Gnadenort war: wer in der Arche 
 sich barg, dem war Gott gmadig The element of propitiation 
 is obvious. But what about the other element? Is the idea of 
 expiation also connected with the ark? Certainly; and this is 
 evident from the fact that only those were admitted who had 
 pleased God by their faith. The latter, in contrast to the un¬ 
 faithful who perished in the flood, are actually to be considered 
 as being cleansed of sin, which was the reason why they found ’ 
 salvation in the ark. Such firm and immovable points should be 
 a warning for the explanation of apparently doubtful examples. 
 The pretext, that a word in different contexts should denote the 
 most heterogeneous ideas, is an act of despair, and is opposed to 
 general philological experience. 
 
 2. The Altar Ledge or Brim 
 
 No less important is the application of the term by the LXX to 
 the altar ledge or brim (Ez. xliii, 14, 17, 20 ). The verses read: 
 “And from the bottom of the ground to the lowest brim (IXaa- 
 T7]pLov —n'^iyn) two cubits and the breadth of one cubit; and from 
 
 the lesser brim (IXao-TTjpLov —n"1iyn) to the greater brim {IXaa- 
 
 TijpLov —four cubits, and the breadth of one cubit’’ (v. 14). 
 
 “And the brim (Ikaar^pLov —H'^iyn) was fourteen cubits long, and 
 
 fourteen cubits broad in the four corners thereof” (v. 17). “And 
 thou shalt take of his blood, and shalt put it upon the four horns 
 thereof, and upon the four corners of the brim {IXaaT^pLov —H'llVn), 
 
 and upon the crown round about” (v. 20). This most realistic 
 use of IXaa-T^pLov, even Deissmann admits, “ erklart sich aus der 
 sakralen Bestimmung der Umfriedigung: sie soil mit dem Blute 
 des Siindopfers besprengt werden und ist deshalb entweder als 
 eine Gnadenstatte oder als ein Siihnort aufgefasst Had he 
 omitted the disjunctive conjunctions “ entweder-oder ” and written 
 “und” instead, he would have given the term its exact proper 
 meaning as the sacred place of expiation and propitiation. The 
 
 Op. cit., 196. 
 
 ®®Op. cit., 196. 
 
76 
 
 notion of locality is once more so conspicnons that no other expla¬ 
 nation is possible. The question whether the expiatory and pro¬ 
 pitiatory elements are the concomitant ideas should not be raised 
 again. Here also the combination of the two ideas is dictated by 
 the context. The LXX writers selected the term Lkaar^piov because 
 it expressed comprehensively that special and sacred locality around 
 the altar where, by the sprinkling of the blood of the sin-offering, 
 expiation was made and propitiation obtained. Zahn, after re¬ 
 ferring to the 0. T. iXacTTypLov as die vornehmste Stelle des Tern- 
 pels, an welche am Versohnungstag der Hohepriester das siihn- 
 kraftige Blut der Biindopfer sprengte continues, in reference to 
 the Ezechiel texts, aus gleichartigem Grunde wird auch 
 
 die Einfriedigung des Brandopferaltars, durch IXaaT^pLov wieder- 
 gegetben 
 
 An example from Christian liturgy testifies with equal clearness 
 to the fundamental local idea of IXao-rrjpLov. In the Typicum, a 
 liturgical work which is ascribed to St. Sabas (V century), we 
 read, in chapter I, that the priest,.after incensing the holy table 
 and the entire altar, passes through the holy door and incenses 
 directly before the IXao-r^ptxi-KaTevMTnov rwv IXaarrjpLoyv. And in chap¬ 
 ter Y the rubrics prescribe that the priest incense the holy table 
 and also the entire tAao-r^piov-ro IXacrr^pLov aTrav.^^ Deissmann 
 frankly states that the word here describes den Altarraum, den 
 Chor der Kirche Most probably these applications refer to 
 the entire sanctuary, and they show that the term was employed 
 in what we claim to be its natural sense, i. e., locality. It is self- 
 evident that this holy place could be designated as IXaarppLov, be¬ 
 cause it was at the altar of the sanctuary that the iXoa-KeirOaL took 
 place by means of sacrifice. 
 
 3. The Altar 
 
 If the altar ledge, the enclosure of the altar, and the sanctuary 
 can be called so, then it need not surprise us to find the altar itself 
 called IXaar^piov. In the lexicon of Hesychius IXoa-r^pLov is de¬ 
 fined by KaOdpcTLoVf Ov<TL<i(TT7]pLov. 'Schleusner quotes the above 
 from Hesychius, and from the lexicon of Cyrillus: IXaarypLov 
 
 ®^0p. cit., 184. 
 
 DuCange, Glossarium Graecitatis, I, 613. 
 
 ®®0p. cit., 196. 
 
 Hesychii Lexicon, II, 41. 
 
 Novus Thesaurus, III, 109. 
 
77 
 
 OvCTUKTT^pLOV, iv 0) TTpOacfiepEL (f Olte TTpOacfiipeTaL iGgGndlim.) TTCpl 
 a/xapTLMv DGissmann citGS both thGSG instancGs but commGnts 
 only on tho first to tliG cffoct that Hosychins must have had a spG- 
 cial application in mind when giving 6v<na<TT^pLov as explanation of 
 Ikaarypiov. He states further that Hesychins explains the word 
 by synonyms because das Eeinigende und das Siihnende liegen 
 nahe zusammen^b Certainly, these notions are inseparably con¬ 
 nected. But why does not Deissmann add the meaning of Ova-Laa- 
 T^pLov ? If, as he argues, KaOdponov means that which purifies 
 and tkacTT^piov “ that which expiates then OvcnanT^piov must mean 
 that which is sacrificed But this meaning it cannot have; foi\ 
 everywhere we find that 6v<Tba<TT^piov designates the altar of sacri¬ 
 fice, or, to be more exact, the place of sacrifice. Consequently if 
 lXa(jT7]pLov is explained by 6v<na<TT^pLov then it must be a place where 
 expiation and propitiation are accomplished. The example from 
 Cyrillus says plainly and indisputably what we have tried to prove 
 by circumstantial argumentation, namely, that IXuar^piov is the 
 altar,Hhe place of expiation and propitiation, upon which sacrifice 
 for sins is offered. 
 
 4. A Church 
 
 A still wider application is given by John Cameniata (X cent.), 
 who, in describing certain magnificent churches, says they are 
 wcTTrep TLva KOLva 7rpo<? to Oelov tXaaTrjpui Deissmann WOuld 
 
 render this passage “wie Versohnungsgeschenke, die der Gottheit 
 von der Gesamtheit geweiht sind”; and he adds that such an 
 application would signify “ ein Weihgeschenk, das zur Gnadig- 
 stimmung der Gottheit errichtet ist’k There is no reason why 
 the firmly-established local notion should have suddenly dis¬ 
 appeared from lXa(TTypLov. Deissmann’s explanation is not to the 
 point. Every church may be a “Weihgeschenk^^; but when the 
 term IXacrr^piov is applied to a particular church, then the “ Weih¬ 
 geschenk becomes all that is comprised in this term, i. e., a place 
 where, by sacrifice, expiation and propitiation are effected. 
 
 Two similar examples quoted by Deissmann appear, upon close 
 examination, to refer not to the church but to the sanctuary proper. 
 Theophanes Continuatus (X cent.) pens a description of a beauti¬ 
 ful church of his time. He is at great pains to describe minutely 
 the sanctuary of the church with its altars and holy tables. He 
 
 Op. cit., 197. 
 
 ®®MPG, 109, 540; De Exoidio Thessalonicae. 
 
 Op. cit., 197. lie quotes from the Corpus Scriptorum Byzantinorum. 
 
78 
 
 then tells of the many singers who took part in the processions 
 held therein and would have ns know that such ceremonies were 
 not nnnsnal in a IXacrrrjpLov of this kind—rw tolovtm IXacrrrjpiM.^'^ 
 Again, he relates the generosity of Constantine toward the church. 
 ^^Who can enumerate the beautiful carpets and vestments which 
 Constantine gave et? to ^oivoy IXacrrypLov ? He adds that these 
 same carpets still covered the floor of the Holy of Holies (the 
 sanctuary) at his time.®^ In these quotations IXacrT^piov clearly 
 refers to the sanctuary of the church. But, he this as it may, the 
 
 fundamental local notion of the term is obvious. 
 
 « 
 
 5. A Monastery 
 
 It is interesting to observe that, while the application of IXacr- 
 rrjpLov widens, it never loses its local notion. Menander (X cent.) 
 curiously enough calls a monastery a IXaa-TTjpLov. Speaking about 
 
 Tov pLovaaTT^piov OLKOV Tov Aeyo/xevov '^e/Savov he relates how the 
 Persians, after breaking their truce made with the Eomans, cap¬ 
 tured this section of the country and, coming into possession of 
 the monastery Sehanon, they fortified it with strong walls —relxei 
 T€ KaTr)(Tcl)aXL(TpLevo)v TO iXaarrjpiov.^^ Such an application, Heissmann 
 holds, can he explained in two ways: Das Kloster ist entweder . . . 
 als gnadigstimmendes Weihgeschenk an Gott aufgefasst, oder . . . 
 als der Gnadenort, wo der Mensch die Siihnung seiner Siinden 
 findet His flrst hypothesis is improbable for, as we have 
 observed, Weihgeschenk^^ does not express the literal meaning of 
 iXacTTTjpLov. A monastery may he a votive offering according to the 
 will and wish of the builder or donor, hut when designated as a 
 iXadrrjpiov it can only he a place where expiation and propitiation 
 are performed. Hence, Deissmann^s second hypothesis is more 
 near the truth, since monasteries are places where expiation for 
 sins is made and the grace of God obtained; and places where the 
 monks by their prayers and works of mortification make expiation 
 for the sins of the world and propitiate an offended God. 
 
 In the opinion of Deissmann, Joseph Genesius (X cent.) also 
 applies the term to a monastery. But we learn from Theophanes 
 Continuatus that the application is rather to the sanctuary of a 
 
 MPG, 109, 341, Basilius Macedo, 83. 
 
 MPG, 109, 469, Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, 28. 
 
 MPG, 113, 857, De Legationibus Romanorum. 
 
 Op. cit., 197. 
 
 “MPG, 109, 220. 
 
79 
 
 church. Joseph relates that Bar das (regent in place of his brother 
 Michael III) set out on an expedition. He had forebodings of 
 his approaching death and went to a nearby place called Hodegus, 
 apparently to pray. While Bardas was standing at the entrance 
 of the iXaarijpLov — to? 8e 7cape<Tri}Kei roi? rov IXxKTTrjpiov 'irpoOvpoi^, his 
 mantle was suddenly torn from his shoulders. He at once saw in 
 this another omen of doom and prayed to the Mother of God for 
 deliverance from the evils impending Deissmann understands 
 this passage to refer to a monastery; but Theophanes, who relates 
 the same expedition, says Bardas went to the church of the 
 Mother of God which is called Hodegus— tt/oo? rov t?)? . . . Ocotokov 
 vaov, o? ovTo> Sr; ‘OSr;yoi KarovopLa^erm The context in the former 
 passage also points to this. Therefore the term is here again 
 employed to designate the special holy place within the church, 
 i. e., the sanctuary, the Holy of Holies of the H. T. That Joseph 
 Genesius most probably meant this, and not a monastery, is inti¬ 
 mated by a similar narrative which Deissmann overlooks. In the 
 same work,^® we hear that the death of Leo V, the Armenian, was 
 determined upon by his enemies. Disguised as priests, they hid in 
 the church and lay in wait for Leo. At the beginning of the hymn 
 of matins Leo, as was his custom, entered the church. His enemies, 
 by mistake, attacked one of the priests, thus giving the alarm to 
 Leo who entered the iXoarr^piov — ovkovv 6 ^dao-iAev? uaya Tw iXoAJTrjptip. 
 His assassins followed and there killed him. There can be no 
 doubt that Joseph here applies the term to the sanctuary; and 
 there is not the least reason to read anything else into the former 
 passage. 
 
 6 . Statues and Monuments 
 
 The use of the term IXaa-rijpLov in inscriptions on statues and 
 monuments constitutes the only real difficulty in the problem’s 
 history, because such applications can be explained in more than 
 one way. But, in view of the constant retention of the local 
 meaning which all previous examples demanded, we may rightly 
 expect that the use of the word in inscriptions on statues and 
 monuments also demands for these applications the established, 
 traditional, and historic sense. We have no right to presuppose a 
 sudden break in the accepted meaning of the term. 
 
 On a statue or on the base of a statue of the imperial period 
 
 »'MPG, 109, 1124, Regum Lib. IV. 
 
 ®^MPG, 109, 1020, Regiim Lib. I. 
 
80 
 
 the following inscription is found: ^^The people of Cos, for the 
 welfare of the Emperor Caesar Augustus, the son of god, OeoU 
 
 IXacrrypLov—6 8a/>to5 virep ra? A.VTOKpdropo'?, Kattrapo? Oeov vlov, '^e/SacTTOv 
 crcoTrjpta^ OeoU IXaxTTrjpiov Another imperial inscription, occur¬ 
 ring upon the fragment of a pillar, reads thus: The people of 
 Hales, to the August and Warlike Zeus, under the presidency of 
 Gains Horbanus, son of Moschion, friend of Caesar, IXaxTT^piov — 
 [6 Sdpio<s 6 ^AXevTLOiv . . . ^€]/?aor[T]w All !S[r]/3aTtw IXacrr^piov, 
 Sapjapx€vvTO<s Tatov ^lop^avov Moo^ta)i/o[? AoKatVapo? A third 
 application is found in Dio Chrysostom (II cent. A. D.) : The 
 Achains shall set up a most beautiful and large votive offering to 
 Athene, and upon it shall inscribe: IXaar^pLov ^Axatol rfi TXtdSt— 
 
 KaraXe'ixjjeiv yap avrov^ dvdOrjjJui KaXXtiTTov Kal pLeyivTOV ’AOiqva Kal 
 hnypaxpeiv • IXa/Try^piov ^Amatol rfj ’lAtdSt 
 
 After quoting these examples Deissmann remarks: In alien 
 diesen Fallen ist IXoa-r^pLov der technische Ausdruck fiir ein die 
 Gottheit gnadig stimmendes Weihgeschenk; man konnte iiber- 
 setzen Besanftigungsgeschenk, Versohnungsgeschenk Deiss- 
 
 manWs meaning appears to be entirely too general and Weih¬ 
 geschenk is hardly correct. Elsewhere after quoting these 
 examples, Deissmann remarks that, early in the imperial period, 
 it was a not uncommon custom to dedicate propitiatory gifts to 
 the Gods, which were called lAao-ri/pta Furthermore, he says, it 
 is very probable that St. Paul knew the word in this sense, for 
 if he had not already become familiar with it by living in Cilicia, 
 he had certainly read it here and there in his wanderings through 
 the empire, when he stood before the monuments of paganism and 
 pensively contemplated what the piety of a dying civilisation had 
 to offer to its known or unknown Gods^k Similarly, the Chris¬ 
 tians in Pome would know what a IXacrTypiov was in their time ’k 
 We readily agree that St. Paul and the Koman Christians could 
 have had a knowledge, and probably did, of such inscriptions. 
 But what meaning would the term IXaa-r^pLov convey to them? 
 Deissmann has no proof that it designated a propitiatory gift. 
 It is true, if we totally ignore the history of the term, then the 
 monument could be called a Weihgeschenk ”, erected for the 
 
 ® Paton-Hicks, Inscriptions of Cos, No. 81, 126. 
 
 Paton-Hicks, Op. cit.. No. 347, 225-226. 
 
 Oratio XI, Edition of Reiske, 355. 
 
 =^Op. cit., 195. 
 
 131-132. 
 
81 
 
 welfare of the emperor because of past favors shown the people. 
 Again, if we abstract from the historical development of the term, 
 the monument could, per se, be styled Yersohnungsgeschenk 
 because the people hoped by its erection to procure the present or 
 future favors of the emperor. But, if considered in the light of 
 the term’s history, the situation is entirely different. That the 
 substantive should now have abandoned its historical basic notion 
 and taken on a new meaning must be proved. On the other hand, 
 we have shown that the fundamental and historical meaning of 
 iXa/TT^pLov is that of locality and, what is of the greatest importance, 
 its frequent application in the 0. T. with this essential local idea, , 
 was very well known to St. Paul and could also have been known 
 to his readers. Both would naturally have understood the word 
 in that sense familiar to them and this must have been the original 
 meaning given to the term by those who coined it, the LXX writers. 
 
 Our argument receives additional convincing evidence by the fact 
 that history also records the erection of statues to gods as distinct 
 symbols of expiation. In the Description of Greece, ii, xx, 1, 
 Pausanias (180 A. D.) mentions the erection of a statue to a god 
 as a symbol of expiation for an offence of blood-shedding. The 
 statue is described as one of white marble, representing Zeus 
 Meilichius in a sitting posture (ayaXfid eo-rt KaOrjfxevov Ai6<; MeiXixtov, 
 XlOov XevKov). Upon investigation, Pausanias relates, he discovered 
 that the statue was erected for the following reason. The Lacedae¬ 
 monians and the Argives were constantly at war with one another; 
 the trouble being caused by the Lacedaemonians, who were always 
 attempting to annex a piece of Argive territory. Determined to 
 defend themselves and their country, the Argives selected a thousand 
 picked men and placed them under the command of Bryas. His 
 behaviour toward the people was offensive, and on one occasion he 
 seized a maiden who was being taken to the bridegroom and raped 
 her. That night when Bryas was asleep the girl put out his eyes 
 and then fled to the people who shielded her. The Thousand 
 demanded that the maiden be delivered to them for punishment; 
 when the people refused both sides took up arms. In the civil 
 war that followed the citizens defeated the picked soldiers and in 
 their anger left none of the soldiers alive. Later on, Pausanias 
 concludes, the people, among other things, brought purifying sacri¬ 
 fices for the guilt of kindred blood and erected a state to Zeus 
 Meilichius — varepov Se dXXa re eir^ydyovro KaOdpava ws ctti alpxiTt 
 €p,(f)vXLM Kal dyaXpja dveO'qKav MeiXLxtov Ato?. There can be no doubt 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 that this statue, erected by the Argives after the blood-shed, should 
 serve as a distinct expiation for that sin; KaOapcna expresses this 
 very clearly. It is a natural sequence that the statue was erected 
 also with the intention of propitiating the possible anger of the 
 god. Hence we see that a statue was erected, where, by the means 
 of sacrifices, the people hoped to expiate their sin and to regain the 
 good will of the god. This historical fact proves that statues were 
 set up by the people for the purpose of manifesting their desire to 
 make expiation for some offence and thus to propitiate the god’s 
 anger by the means of sacrifices. How, therefore, when we find 
 statues or monuments, erected to the gods or to emperors, who at 
 that time were revered as gods, and inscribed with the additional 
 and specific term IXoar^piov, the conclusion must be that this was 
 done with the intention of designating these particular statues as 
 places of expiation and propitiation—be it that the sacrifices were 
 offered at the very place where the statue was erected, or that this 
 statue is a symbol of the real place of sacrifice. In the example 
 from Dio Chrysostom it is plainly seen that, first of all, an avdOr]p,a 
 is to be erected. Then this votive offering is to receive the further 
 inscription of IXaaT^piov. This shows that Weihgeschenk ” or 
 propitiatory gift ” is not the correct meaning. 
 
 Another example, which presents, perhaps, even clearer evidence 
 than the inscriptions, is offered by Josephus (b. 37 A. D.). He 
 relates that Herod sought treasures in the tomb of David and 
 Solomon. Two of his soldiers entered the tomb and advanced as 
 far as the place where their bodies were buried. Suddenly a flame 
 burst forth from the tomb upon the guards and they fled. Then 
 Herod “because of fear built a IXaxTT^piov, a monument of white 
 stone at the entrance to the sepulchre, and that at a great expense— 
 7repLcf)o^o<; S’ avro? /fat rov Seovs IXcwTyjpLOv pivrjpba X€VKrj<; Trirpa^ lin 
 
 TM aropLLM KarecTKevdcraro TroXvreXe^ rfj Sairdvrj Deissmanil 
 
 takes IXacrr^piov to mean “ Beschwichtigungsmittel seiner Angst ” 
 or “ Siihnemittel ffir seinen ihm Angst einflossenden Frevel ”; and 
 adds, one may surmise that Herod’s monument served “ als Weih- 
 geschenk an Gott ...” A monument in itself might be called a 
 “ Weihgeschenk ”; but when the monument is erected to make 
 atonement for a crime, as in the present case, and when it is 
 further called IXaar^piov, then the meaning “ Weihgeschenk ” is 
 altogether out of place. Besides, the history of the word shows that 
 
 ^«^Antiq. XVI, 7, 1. 
 
 Op. cit., 196. 
 
83 
 
 lXaxTTT]pLov has never denoted a simple votive offering. Neither can 
 the term be rendered ^means of expiation’, since for this ex¬ 
 pression only one word was available, i. e., tAao-jad?. But this monu¬ 
 ment must indicate the place where Herod sought to expiate his 
 guilt of attempted robbery and to propitiate the anger of God. 
 Moreover, if Josephus, the Jew, employs the word IXaxrr^pLov, we 
 must suppose that it retains the sense given it by its originators, 
 the LXX writers, with which meaning Josephus was very familiar. 
 
 Having examined the material offered by Deissmann, it can 
 readily be seen why our exegesis leads to quite opposite conclusions. 
 He overlooks the basic notion entirely and reads into all these 
 passages Versohnungs- oder Biihnungsgegenstand, noch allge- 
 meiner zutreffend ein Versohnendes oder Siihnendes Nor can 
 we for one moment admit his assertion that the selection of either 
 ^^Versohnendes” or “Suhnendes” “hat iiberall der Zusammen- 
 hang zu entscheiden The context is not the deciding factor 
 
 in determining which element is to be chosen, because the context 
 is not always clear. Both the usage of profane Greek and our LXX 
 study go Jo show that both elements are fundamentally contained 
 in the root-verb and what is true of the root cannot be lost on its 
 way to the various derivatives. Any departure from this accepted 
 sense must be proved on better evidence than that furnished by 
 Deissmann. It was disastrous for his results that he neglected 
 the historical development of the complicated idea of the term 
 and overlooked the fundamental notion of locality furnished by 
 the LXX. 
 
 B. New Corroborative Evidence 
 
 We now present some fresh material, all of it plainly indicating 
 that the word must express a local notion. We have discovered 
 applications of the term IXaxjTTjpLov in reference to 
 
 1 . The Blessed Virgin 
 
 The author of the Sermo de Simeone et Anna, which has been 
 erroneously ascribed to Methodius,^®® describes Mary as to lAoa- 
 TTjpLov from which God in human form became known to men— to 
 iXaarrjpLOV ov ®eo«j eyvoicrOr) avOpMTroL<; av0po)7ropAp(j)<i}<;N^ Such an 
 identification of Mary with the 0. T. propitiatory is indeed* excep- 
 
 cit., 198. 
 
 Bardenlievvcr, Patrology, 178. 
 
 '°'MPG, 18, 372. 
 
84 
 
 tional and extraordinary. The association of ideas, however, is 
 quite natural. Just as God’s presence was disclosed to the Israelites 
 from over the propitiatory in the Holy of Holies, so now, through 
 Mary, God becomes manifest to all the world. Mary it is who 
 bears Christ, God’s sacrifice for our sins, and therefore she may he 
 styled TO IXodT^piov, where God manifests Himself to the world and 
 vouchsafes universal expiation and propitiation. 
 
 In the oration. In Dormitionem S. Mariae, III, Andkew of Crete 
 thus addresses Mary: Hitherto while living upon earth you 
 
 could be claimed as part of the earth; but now, that you have 
 been taken from all that is human, the entire world embraces thee 
 as a common IXaar^pLOv —6 avpara^ Tre/ateyet ere ko(t/i,o? kolvov lXa<T- 
 T^/otov”.^°® Our explanation of the preceding passage also applies 
 here. Mary is not a votive offering nor a propitiatory gift. It is 
 evident that only the local notion of IXoar^piov can be the founda¬ 
 tion for Andrew’s speculation. Mary’s womb is the place where 
 God manifested Himself to the world for salvation. 
 
 The same arguments hold good for the applications of the term 
 by Germ ANUS. In homily I, In Praesentationem SS. Deiparae, he 
 calls Mary the new IXaxTpqpiov which is most God-like, not made by 
 hand and gifted with cleansing power — IXaxTTiqpLov Kmvov re Kal 
 OeoeiSeaTaTov KadapriKov re Kal ayeiporcvKTOv ypT^/wirtcrao'a.^®^ In the 
 
 homily. In Annuntiationem 88. Deiparae, Germanus composes a 
 dialogue between Mary and the angel Gabriel. The angel says to 
 her: You shall become the common IXoarr^piov of all Christians— 
 
 ypto’Tiavwi/ airavToiv yevqcrrj kolvov IXoarypiov ”; and later Gabriel again 
 addresses Mary as the iXoa-Ti^pLov of the entire world —tov Koapov 
 TravTo? IXaa-TppLov.^^^ These quotations clearly indicate also an in¬ 
 tended contrast between the 0. T. type and its H. T. antitype as 
 applied to Mary. Attention is called to the use of the future 
 (yevTjar)) which shows that Mary was not a IXoarypiov from all 
 times, but was to become such only after she became the Mother 
 of Christ. 
 
 2. The Altar 
 
 To the examples of Deissmann, where IXauar^pLov is defined by 
 the synonym OvavaoT^piov, can be added several more direct testi¬ 
 monies. Already Theodore of Mopsuestia, when explaining Amos 
 
 ^“8MPG, 97, 1100. 
 
 98, 293. 
 
 110 mPG, 98, 329. See also 308 where Germanus calls Mary TrayKoafiiov 
 
 VKaarripLov. 
 
85 
 
 IX- 1, writes that the Lord instructed the prophet to strike the 
 iXaxxT^pLOv — vrXrj^aL to IXaxTTypiov, thus Calling IXacrr^piov an altar— Lva 
 UTTT], TO OvavacjTripiov. This testimony receives additional impor¬ 
 tance when Theodore expresses in clear terms his reasons for the 
 use of -the word; for, he adds, ^^the altar is a IXoar^ptov because 
 upon it sacrifices are offered as mjeans of expiation and propitia¬ 
 tion — IXoATTTjpLov yap avTO KaXel < 0 ? im tAcwr/xot? t(ov Ovo'lwv Trpocra- 
 We must be grateful to Theodore for such an express 
 definition of the disputed word. This alone provides certain evi¬ 
 dence for the correct solution of our problem. 
 
 'Cyril of Alexandria, commenting on Amos ix, 1, changes the 
 LXX reading ^Vara^ov to tAaorT^ptov” into strike upon the altar— 
 Trara^ov im to OvavaaT^pLov Which permits the reasonable de¬ 
 duction that Cyril considered 6v<rbaaT^pLov as sjoionym of IXaxTT^piov, 
 and then the latter word must share the local notion of the former. 
 
 In Rerum Ecclesiast. Contemplatio, a liturgical work which is 
 generally attributed to Germanus hut which is “of very doubtful 
 authenticity we meet passages which are self-explanatory. In 
 this treatise on the church, its furnishings, and ceremonies, the 
 author writes that in the church is found to iXoa-r^piov and the 
 Holy of Holies —cv y to IXaxTT^piov, Kal ra Ayui twv We 
 
 learn what he designates as IXacTT^piov when he says: “ Ownaar^pLov 
 
 ecTTLV IXaxTT^piov, hf <S 7 rpo<Te(f>€peTo Trcpt t^? apxipTLa^ ?? 115 
 
 planation of the liturgy of the Mass, we are told that, “as the 
 invisible God spoke to Moses and Moses to God, so the priest, 
 standing between the two cherubim before the IXanr^pLov—6 lep€v<;, 
 pecrov TMv Svo ')(epovf3tp eo^TO)? iv tw tXao'T'qpiia, converses silently with 
 God^h^^® We see that the sanctuary of our churches is contrasted 
 with the Holy of Holies of the 0. T. and our altar is compared 
 with the 0. T. iXaxjT^piov. Probably this is the reference Suidas 
 has in mind when he defines lX<wT^pLov as “ dvcnaa-T^piov^ propitia- 
 torium: altare, supra quod per sacrificia fiebat propitiatio divinique 
 Numinis placatio It may be added that in the lexicons of 
 
 Suidas IXacTT^piov is always defined by the synonym dvmaxTT^pLov; 
 
 MPG, 6G, 297. 
 
 “^MPG, 71, 561. 
 
 Bardenheiwer, Patrology, 582. 
 
 ]\IPG, 98, 385. 
 
 ”®MPG, 98, 389. 
 
 “«MPG, 98, 429. 
 
 “’Quoted from Suicerus, Thesaurus Eccles., 1448. 
 
 “«Suidae Lexicon, II, 114; Suidas-Bekkerus, Lexicon, 528. 
 
86 
 
 which shows that IXaaryptov obviously possesses in common with 
 OvaiaxjT^piov the local idea. 
 
 »Christodulos, who in the XI century was patriarch of the 
 Copts/^® lays down in his liturgical canons that the holy table 
 should be, as a rule, within the select part of the church, and 
 therefore it is placed in the middle of the sanctuary, the very Holy 
 of Holies, where the altar or the IXao-TTjpLov is —rb Ovaiaar^pLov ^ Kal 
 tXao-TypLov This reference is perfectly obvious. 
 
 It is interesting to note that the Coptic language employs for 
 the term Ovmaar^pLov^ the expressive equivalent JUL^XiepcyCWOVg^J, 
 which literally means the place of doing (the) sacrificing 
 Butler remarks that etymologically the Coptic term for altar 
 seems to correspond very closely with the Greek ’k This Coptic 
 term, he adds, conveys the notion of a place of making sacrifice 
 
 so that the idea is clearly that of a sacrificial structure like the 
 Ovmaar^pLov of the Greek Church Further comment is un¬ 
 necessary. 
 
 3. The Confession of Altars 
 
 According to Anastasius Bibliothecarius (IX cent.) propitia¬ 
 tor ium signifies a distinct part of the altar, to be more exact, 
 the confessio in which the bodies of martyrs and confessors were 
 placed. Over the confession the altar was erected. In his life of 
 Pope Paschal we meet with several such applications. Thus he 
 writes that Paschal erected a propitiatorium sacri altaris beati 
 Petri apostolorum principis, ubi sacratissimum corpus ejus re- 
 quiescitElsewhere he identifies propitiatorium with con¬ 
 fessio : Propitiatorium vero sacri altaris, seu confessionem 
 and again: Propitiatorium denique sacri altaris, seu confes¬ 
 
 sionem In the same way: “ Propitiatorium etiam altaris ex 
 laminis argenteis exornatum circumduxit, atque sacram confes¬ 
 sionem ejus interius exteriusque cum rugulis suis nobilissime cir- 
 cumstruxit Anastasius does not mean the ciborium for we 
 
 also read; “ Fecit autem in eadem ecclesia ciborium ex argento, 
 
 Cf. Fortescue, Lesser East. Churches, 235, London, 1913. 
 
 Daniel, Codex Lit. EccL Orient., 208. 
 
 ^Coptic Churches, II, The Altar, 1. Cf. Renaudot, Liturgiaruni Col- 
 lectio, I, 164, Londini, 1847. 
 
 »22MPL, 128, 1271-1272. 
 
 “"MPL, 128, 1269-1270. 
 
 “^MPL, 128, 1265-1266. 
 
 ’^^:MPL, 128, 1261-1262. 
 
87 
 
 . . . imo et propitiatoriiim sacri altaris ex argenteis laminis miri- 
 fice exornavit In these quotations propitiatorium un¬ 
 
 doubtedly refers to the sepulchre of the martyrs over which the 
 altar was huiltd^'^ Its meaning in such a usage is evident, for the 
 martyrs’ crypt was a special place of veneration. There the faith¬ 
 ful gathered and through the intercession of the martyr or con¬ 
 fessor sought expiation for sins and propitiation and grace from 
 God sacrifice in honor of the martyr. 
 
 Hugo Flaviniacensis (ca. 1100) also calls the crypt of a saint a 
 ^‘^propitiatorium”. He describes the burial of St. Sanctinus. 
 
 Sacratissimum corpus ejus ad propiciandum Heum miseris mor- 
 talibus super altare in celesti propiciatorio ab episcopis honorifice 
 repositum est”.^^® In Chronicon II, he again makes use of the 
 word to designate the confession of the mart 3 us. Propicia- 
 torium sane sanctorum ”, he writes, exornant corpora, quorum 
 meritis floret ecclesia These applications of ^^propitiatorium” 
 to the confession of martyrs are distinct evidences for the meaning 
 of locality. 
 
 4. A Tomb or Sepulchre 
 
 In the life of St. Theda, supposed to have been written by 
 Basil of Seleucia,^®® we read that the place of burial is like 
 the office of a healing surgeon, and it has become the common 
 lXau(TTr]pLOV of the whole world— (us dvai TrdvSrjiJLOv iaTpelov tov tottov, 
 Kal KOLVOV KeSerdvai rrj'^ yrj<i dirda'q-^ tXaur^piov ”. Basil adds that 
 strangers and residents of the city flocked to the tomb, which was 
 never deserted by devout clients of the saint. Some came out of 
 reverence or to make promises or to fulfil them; others, to obtain 
 relief in their pains or aid in their spiritual battles.As used 
 here, IXoaTyptov describes a special place (toVo?) where a higher 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 ^ Cf. Heuser, REA, I, 325-327 art. Confessio. 
 
 MPL, 154, 38. The relics of martyrs were not placed immediately 
 upon the altar, “ sondern auf einem Geriiste hinter der Mensa,” as Probst 
 says in Kirchenlexikon, I, 590, art. Altar. This practice was approved 
 by Pope Leo IV (855) who says: ‘‘ Super altare nihil ponatur, nisi capsae 
 cum reliquiis sanctorum” (MPL, 115, 077). 
 
 "®MPL, 154, 208. 
 
 Tixeront, Handbook of Patrology, 210, says this “life of St. Theda 
 in prose is probably not the work of Basil Bardenhewer, Patrology, 532, 
 merely states that Basil wrote “ a long life of the so-called protomartyr 
 Theda ”. 
 
 MPG, 85, 500. 
 
88 
 
 power is present as salvation from physical or moral evils; further¬ 
 more, a place where expiation and propitiation are found: the 
 former, in obtaining through the saint’s intercession relief from 
 afflictions, and the latter, in the reception of grace from God. 
 Zahn knows of this passage but draws no conclusion. In reference 
 to such applications he says: Als Statten, wo man Siihne seiner 
 Siinden und Gnade bei Gott findet, werden in der jiingeren Lite- 
 ratur Kirchen, Kloster, besonders auch die Altare nicht selten 
 IXwjT^pia genannt”.^^^ We can only add to this frank statement 
 that later literature presents the reflection of an old, well established 
 terminology. 
 
 The completed study of old and new material has made it clear 
 that IXaxjT^pLov, in its literal meaning, has reference to a locality. 
 We know that the term has a definite and determinate complex 
 meaning and this is: a sacred place where expiation and propitia¬ 
 tion are accomplished generally by the means of sacrifice or 
 offering. 
 
 Corollary. The Adjective IXaaryjpLO’i. Along with the substantive 
 there occur also sporadically adjectival uses of the term. In a re¬ 
 cently discovered papyrus of the second century the following 
 passage appears: roi? ^eot? elXacrry) [/5to] v<? Ovaia^i [0e] vtc? CTrire- 
 Xela-OaL.^^^ On this Deissmann remarks: “ Ob hier lXaorTr]pLo<5 Ovata 
 die Bedeutung Versohnungsopfer hat, oder Siihnopfer, ist nicht zu 
 entscheiden But it is clear that lXa(TTqplov<i Ovata^ must signify 
 expiatory and propitiatory sacrifices offered to the gods. In lY 
 Machabees xvii^ 22 we read that the seven martyrs became, as it 
 were, a substitution for the sins of the nation and that through 
 their blood and their tXaaTrjpLov death divine Providence saved 
 Israel— iStd tov mpuaro^ twv evaefiaHv eKetvoiV Kal tov iXoAJrrjpiov Oavarov 
 Deissmann argues for the meaning “ siihnend ” but 
 the propitiatory element is present also. The sacrificial death of 
 the martyrs served as expiation for the sins of the people and at 
 the same time as propitiation of divine Providence. Hioephorus 
 of Antioch, in his life of St. Simeon Stylites, records that God 
 visited the people with a fatal pestilence. Simeon, recognizing in 
 this a punishment from God because of the sins of the people, in 
 
 Op. cit., 184. 
 
 133 Orenfell-Hunt, rayiim Towns and their Papyri, 313, No. 337. 
 
 Op. cit., 193. 
 
 Swete, Old Testament in Greek, III, 759-760, Cambridge, 1912. 
 
 Op. cit., 194. 
 
89 
 
 prayer lifted up his suppliant, or rather, his propitiatory hands to 
 God until the pestilence ceased— iKeTriplov’i, el jSovXeL Be tAao•^ 
 TrjpLov^, eKreLva<i Versohnend ’’ is Deissmann’s selection. 
 
 But we see that the people had offended God. Simeon, as their 
 intercessor, by his prayers expiated for the people and rendered 
 God propitious. In the same work Nicephorus relates of a de¬ 
 structive earthquake that took place at Constantinople. The mother 
 of St. Simeon, perceiving in the earthquake divine punishment, 
 and anxious for the salvation of the people, appealed to her son. 
 Simeon, we are told, retired to his cell and did not cease in his 
 supplications until divine mercy was shown and until he, the sup¬ 
 pliant, found those (things) procuring IXaxrr^pui with God by word 
 of mouth—a Bia (TTopxLTO^ eyovra evpev tXxwT^pLa tt/oos ®eoi/ LKecrla}^^ 
 The word iXaxrr^pva appears to be used as an adjective qualifying a; 
 and this may refer to the prayers or words of Simeon which were 
 both expiatory and propitiatory. 
 
 Such examples again prove that the term when used as an 
 adjective faithfully retains the elements of expiation and pro¬ 
 pitiation. Of course it is only natural that the local notion should 
 disappear when the term is employed as an adjective. 
 
 MPG, 86^ 3056. 
 
 “®Op. cit., 194. Deissmann quotes from the Acta SS. Mail, V, 335. 
 ’»MPG, 86,3089; Acta SS. Mali, V, 348. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 Application of the Results to Rom. hi, 25 
 
 It now remains to be seen wRether the results of the completed 
 investigation are applicable to Rom. iii, 25. Before making this 
 application, however, let us recapitulate our results and those of 
 Deissmann with his exegesis on the Pauline term, and let us 
 briefly examine other H. T. material. 
 
 In the historical part it was shown that the variety of ren¬ 
 derings found in the different versions indicates the presence of 
 more than one element in the disputed term. This hypothesis was 
 given greater probability by the manifold interpretations of modern 
 exegetes who, in their search for its satisfactory application to 
 Christ, employed now one, now another element. Among all 
 opinions the one which applied IXoar^pLov to Christ as the antitype 
 of the 0. T. propitiatory w^as found the most prominent. Some 
 few moderns expressed the view that the 0. T. IXoatt^plov was the 
 place of expiation or propitiation or manifestation of God. Quota¬ 
 tions from patristic writers emphatically showed that the 0. T. 
 type was considered a special locality. The patristic interpreta¬ 
 tion of Rom. Ill, 25, especially that of the Greek Fathers, builds 
 up a convincing argument for the conclusion that St. Paul applied 
 the term to Christ with the avowed purpose of proving that He 
 in His sacrifice literally fulfilled all that was typified by the 0. T. 
 propitiatory. 
 
 In the exegetical part it was conclusively demonstrated, both 
 from profane and biblical Greek literature, that lXdaKea6aL with its 
 cognates essentially contains the elements of expiation, propitia¬ 
 tion, and reconciliation; and that quite generally these acts were 
 procured by means of sacrifice or oblation. It was further seen 
 that the substantive IXaur^piov, with its fundamental notion of 
 locality, originated beyond all doubt in the LXX. The applica¬ 
 tion of the noun to various localities and to the Blessed Virgin was 
 confirmative evidence for our conclusion. 
 
 Deissmann arrives at conclusions quite the reverse. According 
 to him the term has no definitely fixed meaning and, therefore, in 
 every application the context must decide which element is present. 
 In applying his results to Rom. iii, 25, he begins by saying there is 
 weder eine feste allgemeingriechische Verwendung des Wortes^ 
 90 
 
91 
 
 noch eine feste ^ biblische ^ From this he argues that there is 
 only one general meaning which can be considered, and this is: 
 
 iXoATT^pLov bedentet; ein Versohnendes oder ein Siihnendes 
 These statements must be altered in the light of the present in¬ 
 vestigation which concludes with unmistakable evidence that the 
 word has a definitely fixed meaning, attached to it already by its 
 authors, the LXX writers, and traceable throughout its history; 
 which meaning is that of a sacred place where expiation and pro¬ 
 pitiation are accomplished hy sacrifice. 
 
 Deissmann^s next statement is, that the exegetical problem in 
 Rom. Ill, 25 consists in ascertaining what the object of the term is, 
 or, to put it in his own words: ‘^Was ist als Objekt des in IXacr^ 
 TrjpLov steckenden IXda-KeaOaL von Paulus gedacht; Gott? oder die 
 Menschen ? oder die iSiinde ? He finds that very probably sin 
 and sin alone is its object and so, as applied to Christ, the term 
 designates Him als der Suhner oder das 'Siihnende But the 
 upshot of our study in its various phases, especially profane Greek 
 and the LXX, leaves no room for further doubt that IXdo-KeaOat and 
 its derivatives have as object not sin alone but also the Divinity 
 and men. Hence it means to expiate sin, to propitiate God, and 
 thus to reconcile Him with man. 
 
 Finally Deissmann puts the question: ^^Bezieht sich das Be- 
 kenntnis des Apostels auf den irdischen oder auf den erhohten 
 Christus ? He believes St. Paul has in mind the physical blood 
 of Christ —‘‘alpui ist dann das physische, einmal vergossene Blut 
 Christi^k However, he does not exclude the possibility, or even 
 the probability, of the second part of the proposition, according to 
 which ev T(p avTov aipxiTL means in der Blutsgemeinschaft mit dem 
 erhohten, pneumatisch-lebendigen Herrn Such a formulation 
 is undoubtedly wrong; for in Rom. iii, 25, 8t. Paul does not con¬ 
 cern himself with the earthly or the exalted Christ. He knows only 
 the one Christ who is both God and man, and, as we shall see, the 
 entire verse with its surrounding context demands the interpreta¬ 
 tion of reality. The reference, therefore, is to the real blood shed 
 by Christ as expiation and propitiation for mankind. 
 
 1. TAao-Kca^at and its Derivatives in the X. T. 
 
 In X. T. writings iXdaKeaOaL and its derivatives seldom occurs. 
 The few examples that are found, however, clearly show that here 
 
 ^ Op. cit., 209. 
 * Op. cit., 211. 
 
 "Op. cit., 211. 
 
92 
 
 also it has the same sense as in profane and 0. T. literature. St. 
 Luke employs it in the parable of the pharisee and the publican 
 (xviii^ 13). The latter, standing afar oft in the temple, is con¬ 
 scious of the guilt of sin. He seeks expiation and, striking his 
 breast, prays solely for God’s mercy, pardon, and grace: 6 ©eo?, 
 tXdo-OrjTL ixoi T(o dfjuapTOiXM. The effect of his prayer is told by our 
 Lord Himself: the man went down to his house justified (v. 19), 
 which means that God was propitiated and reconciled with the 
 publican. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (ii, 17) the double notion 
 is clearly discerned. We learn (v. 3) of the salvation (o-wrrypia?) 
 procured for us by Christ. Through His passion He vanquished 
 satan and delivered those who were subject to him (10-15). There¬ 
 fore in all things Christ became like unto His brethren, that He 
 might become a merciful and faithful High Priest before God and 
 might expiate the sins of the people— eU to IXdo-KeaOai ras dimprla^ 
 Tov Xaov. Christ’s piacular sacrifice for sins brought salvation to 
 the world and placated His Father. 
 
 The noun tAao-^oo? occurs twice in the Johannine epistles. St. 
 John exhorts his readers to avoid sin. But should they be so un¬ 
 fortunate as to fall into sin, then they need not despair for Jesus 
 Christ the Just is our advocate with the Father (I John ii, 1). 
 Hot only is He our advocate but tAac/xo? ecmv irepl twv dpap- 
 
 TLMv and not merely for our sins but also for those of the 
 
 whole world (v. 2). Sin was taken away by Jesus Christ and to 
 do so He appeared on earth (iii, 4-8). We, therefore, must learn 
 to love God as He has loved us; for out of love for us He sent His 
 only begotten Son into the world (iv, 7-9). It was God who loved 
 us first and, as manifestation of His love, dTrecretAev rdv vlov avrov 
 iXacrpiov Trepl twv dpLapridiv ” (iv, 10). As the context shows sin 
 is considered as the evil oppressing mankind. This God removed 
 when He sent His Son who made expiation for all sins. The 
 emphasis that we should love God as He loved us points to pro¬ 
 pitiation,—^both of these acts being accomplished by means of 
 Christ’s sacrifice. St. John uses tAatr/xd? in its usual sense of means 
 of expiation and propitiation. 
 
 Excepting Pom. iii, 25, IXaaTypiov is found hut once and that in 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is significant that in this instance 
 it is used in its original local sense. The writer explains the 
 superiority of the H. T. to that of the Old. The priesthood of 
 Christ excells the Levitical priesthood (vii-viii). Then follows 
 mention of the tabernacle, its divisions and contents, the author 
 
93 
 
 stating that in the Holy of Holies were the chernbim overshadowing 
 the propitiatory — -^epovl3t[x KaraaKLa^ovra to iXacrr^pLOV (iX, 
 
 1-5). The sacrifice of Christ is then described as the fulfillment 
 of all 0. T. sacrifices; in particular He is the High Priest who, 
 with His own blood, entered hut once into the holies and obtained 
 eternal redemption (6-28). The entire ninth chapter is an ac¬ 
 cumulation of figurative expressions in relation to Christ. 
 
 The meaning of IXaarrjpLov in Rom. iii, 25 will be firmly estab¬ 
 lished if the sense, as furnished by the historico-literary investiga¬ 
 tion of the word, is applicable to this verse, and if the general 
 and immediate context confirm this application. 
 
 2. TAacTT^ptoi/ in Rom. iii, 25 
 
 A. A word must be added concerning the use of IXadT^ptov by 
 St. Paul. Moderns have discussed this considerably, and the gen¬ 
 erally accepted opinion is, that the Apostle employed the term not 
 as adjective but as substantive. Patristic exegesis, which often 
 even made the application of the term to Christ more emphatic 
 by the addition of the article ro, also demands the substantive use. 
 The literary investigation likewise requires the same conclusion. 
 Wherefore we hold, as our exegesis has already shown, that St. 
 Paul used the term not as adjective but as substantive. 
 
 B. The Context of Bom. iii, 25. In Rom. i, 16-17 St. Paul 
 states the theme of his epistle, which is that the Gospel “is the 
 power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the 
 Jew first, and to the Greek. For the justice of God is revealed 
 therein, from faith unto faith”. In contrast to the true gospel, 
 pagan religion with its false philosophy, void of faith and humility, 
 betrays its adherents into shameful sins (i, 18-32). The state of 
 the Jewish people, however, is not different. They condemn the 
 Gentiles, yet do the same things (ii, 1-4). Because of the sin¬ 
 fulness of all men, therefore, the just judgment of God will fall 
 upon them, for there is no respect of persons with God (ii, 5-11). 
 The Gentiles have as their norm the law of nature and their con¬ 
 science, but if they are only hearers thereof and not doers, they 
 shall not be justified (ii, 12-16). And the Jew, despite his priority 
 of knowledge of God’s law, has failed in its observance. His cir¬ 
 cumcision, therefore, is no better for him than the uncircumcision 
 of the heathen. For, not he is a Jew who is such only outwardly, 
 but he who is so inwardly and in reality (ii, 17-29). Their advan¬ 
 tages notwithstanding, the Jews have proven unfaithful; and their 
 
94 
 
 perfidy is inexcusable (iii^ 1-8). These are the conditions as the 
 Apostle views them^ and he arraigns ^^hoth Jews and Greeks that 
 they are all under sin (iii, 9). Universal failure is the result; 
 Jew and Gentile alike stand guilty before God. To give his argu¬ 
 ment more weight the Apostle adds proof from the 0. T. (iii^ 9-20). 
 
 !St. Paul has now stated his problem which is the universality of 
 sin. He proceeds to explain the universal remedy for this universal 
 failure. This new way of salvation, which is the gift of God be¬ 
 stowed on man and manifesting the justice of God, is open to every 
 one that believeth; and, while independent of the law, it is attested 
 "^^by the law and the prophets^’ (iii^ 21). It is universal in ex¬ 
 tent, being obtainable “by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon 
 all them that believe in Him^^ (in, 22). How, therefore, there is 
 no further distinction between Jew and Gentile, because all have 
 sinned and stand in need of the visible glory and divine manifesta¬ 
 tion of God in His Son (in, 23). In this, the general context, St. 
 Paul points out the universality of sin and contrasts to it the uni¬ 
 versal salvation which is the new way of justification. On the part 
 of God, this new way is a free gift, and, on the part of man, it is 
 not merely a confidence in God’s mercy which results in the cer¬ 
 tainty of salvation, but a co-operation of man’s free will and in¬ 
 tellect with the grace of God whereby man becomes righteous. 
 
 And now in three verses, the immediate context, St. Paul ex¬ 
 plains in detail this new way of justification; and this marks our 
 arrival, as Deissmann well words it, “ an der tiefgriindigen Stelle 
 Eom 3, 25 In v. 24 the Apostle states that no man merited 
 justification, but it was a free gift on the part of God and was 
 obtained “ Sta a7roAvrpwcr£t09 Iv X.p(XTTM ^lycrov ”, that is, the 
 redemption procured by paying a ransom which was the blood of 
 Christ. Thus he has prepared us for his most emphatic statement, 
 which is: ov TTpolOero 6 ©eo? IXoATTr^piov Sia Trj<; ttiVtco)? iv tm avTOV 
 alpjari. In these words the redemption is described in a most vivid 
 and realistic way. The verb irpoiBero (set forth) refers to the 
 manner of exhibiting Christ as IXacrTrjpLov and, as Lightfoot cor¬ 
 rectly says, the force of the preposition Trpo “ is not temporal, but 
 local The phrase Sea Trto-reo)?, which indicates the source of 
 righteousness and the principal channel of applying to ourselves 
 the effects of the aTroXvrpuHTeM^, testifies to the reality of Christ as 
 IXaarypiov. Likewise the words iv tw ovtov aipban, — the means of 
 
 ^Op. cit., 208. 
 
 "Op. cit., 271. 
 
95 
 
 
 the redemption, distinctly remind ns of reality because Christ is 
 iXaaTijpLov in His own blood. Immediately there comes to mind 
 the oft repeated statement of patristic interpretation, especially 
 the G-reek, that Christ as IXacrrrjpLov is the reality (dXrjOeia) in con¬ 
 trast to the 0. T. mere appearance (tuVo?) ; also the statement 
 that Christ is the universal IXaaTrjpiov in contrast to the IXaarrjpLov 
 of the 0. T., w^hich was exclusively for the Israelites. Hence, what 
 the IXaaTTjpLov in the Holy of Holies was for the Israelites only, 
 that Christ is now become for all: the universal remedv for the 
 
 4 / 
 
 universality of sin by His sacrifice. In this one word, in which 
 lies ^Hhe key to the conception of Christ’s atoning death”, as 
 Vincent ® aptly remarks, St. Paul gives the solution of his thesis 
 that the Gospel is the power of salvation to all. Does the primary, 
 literal meaning of IXaaTyjpiov, which the investigation made mani¬ 
 fest, also find application in this 25th verse? Beyond all doubt 
 it does. God has set forth Christ (the H. T. universal reality in 
 contrast to the 0. T. particular type) to become by the sacrifice of 
 His own blood the place where God’s righteousness is shown to be 
 completely propitiated—et? cvSel^lv rij'^ iStKatocrwrys avTov, and where 
 former sins are passed over —Sta t^v irdpeaiv tw Trpoyeyovorwv dpxip- 
 TTjpidTiDv. And faith guarantees the reality of this antitype. In v. 
 26 St. Paul continues the explanation. Seemingly unconcerned, 
 God looked on at the triumph of sin under the old dispensation. 
 But now, in setting forth His Son as the place of expiation and 
 propitiation. His righteousness is made manifest and He makes 
 righteous him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. Wherefore, 
 justification consists not in the mere covering of sin and an ex¬ 
 ternal declaration of man’s being justified, but in the complete 
 removal and forgiveness of sin and an internal sanctification. 
 
 This interpretation is confirmed by what follows in the context. 
 If Christ by His own blood has become localized expiation and 
 propitiation, then, as a consequence, all boasting on the part of 
 man must cease, since man is made righteous by a real faith in 
 Jesus Christ without the works of the law (iii, 27-28). The 
 second consequence is that the redemption is universal, including 
 Jew and Gentile alike (iii, 29-31). Accordingly, we see that the 
 general as well as the immediate context of Rom. iii, 25 fully 
 admits the interpretation of IXaarrjpLov in its fundamental literal 
 sense. Such an interpretation would also be intelligible to St. 
 Paul’s readers. The objection is raised by Sanday-IIeadlam, 
 
 " Op, oit., 4.S, 
 
96 
 
 Lightfoot, and others^, that to identify Christ with the 0. T. place 
 of expiation and propitiation, is an nnsnitahle and confusing ap¬ 
 plication since it makes Him at once priest and victim and the 
 actual place. This is well answered by Boehmer ^ who argues that 
 if Christ can he described as entering the Holy of Holies with His 
 own blood (Hehr. ix, 13), ^^warnm soil Panins nicht . . . den 
 blnthherstromten Leib Jesn mit dem blntbesprengten Deckel der 
 Bnndeslade verglichen haben . . Other modern exegetes assert 
 that the application of IXaaT^piov ito Christ as the antitype of the 
 0. T. type would be meaningless to the Gentile readers of the 
 Epistle, since they lacked the preliminary notions upon which that 
 figure is predicated, namely, the temple, propitiatory, sacrifices, 
 etc. But they seem to forget that a large portion of the Gentile 
 Christians approached Christianity through the portals of a pre¬ 
 vious connexion with Judaism A fortiori could St. Paul pre¬ 
 suppose a knowledge of the most important ceremony of expiation 
 and propitiation, which centered around the ri“l_E)3 on the part of 
 
 the <T€l36fi€voL Tov ©coV, those Gentiles who feared the one God of 
 the Jews, who observed some of the 0. T. laws, and who con¬ 
 stituted the seed plot of Christianity in the early Christian Church. 
 Again, those commentators, who maintain that the Pauline word 
 has nothing in common with the 0. T. tAao-r^ptov, are confronted 
 with the serious difficulty of explaining the unanimous testimony 
 of the Greek Fathers that Christ as IXaar^pLov is the reality and 
 antitype of the 0. T. symbol and type. 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 We now possess a definite and positive knowledge of the Pauline 
 IXadT^piov. The sources of information regarding the elements con¬ 
 tained in the root-verb are undoubtedly profane Greek and the 
 LXX. The substantive IXadTijpLovy with its inherent notion of 
 locality. Sit. Paul took from the LXX, the birthplace of the term. 
 Especially the use of this word by the LXX to designate the par¬ 
 ticular place within the Holy of Holies, showed St. Paul the fitness 
 and appropriateness of its application to Christ. In applying that 
 one term to Christ he could concisely and precisely embody his 
 belief in the divinity and humanity of Christ, as well as clearly 
 express the reason and result of Christ’s sacrifice. With this one 
 
 ^Heilslehre nach d. Edmerbriefe, 11. 
 
 ®lSanday-Headlani, op. cit., xxxiv. 
 
97 
 
 word, then, the Apostle teaches that, as God manifested His pres¬ 
 ence from over the 0. T. IXadT^piov, so now He manifests His 
 presence in the person of His Son; and, as the blood of the sin- 
 olfering made expiation for sins and propitiated God, thus recon¬ 
 ciling Him with the Israelites, so now Christ in His own blood 
 expiated all sins and propitiated God, thus reconciling Him with 
 mankind. 
 
 We can say that the term IXaar^pLov is difficult to grasp only 
 because of the numerous ideas for which it stands. We now know 
 that Christ as IXuarypiov sums up in Himself all these ideas. One 
 and the same word thus stands for both the reason and effect of 
 Christ’s atoning death,—^the former: to expiate sin, to propitiate 
 His Father, and thus to reconcile Him with man; the latter: uni¬ 
 versal redemption and salvation. St. Paul’s concept of IXaaT^pLov, 
 then, is this:—By faith we have the guarantee that Jesus Christ 
 was set forth by His Father to manifest His divinity, and to 
 become the place where, by His own blood, real expiation for 
 sin was made and propitiation of a just God accomplished, thus 
 effecting reconciliation between an offended God and sinful man. 
 
 7 
 
ABBKEVIATIONS 
 
 BS—Bible Studies 
 
 DAC—Hastings, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church 
 EBi—Encyclopaedia Biblica 
 ERE—^Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics 
 ExpT—^The Expository Times 
 HBD—'Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible 
 JE—Jewish Encyclopaedia 
 
 KAT®—Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (Zimmern) 
 MPG—'Migne, Patrologia Graeca / 
 
 MPL—Migne, Patrologia Latina 
 
 REA—Real-Encyclopadie der Christlichen Alterthiimer 
 StKr—Studien und Kritiken 
 
 ZntlW—Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 
 
 99 
 
\ 
 
BIBLIOC^RAPHY 
 
 (The Patristic literature is taken from Migne, P. G. and P. L., and is 
 
 not included in this Bibliography.) 
 
 Abbott, Lyman, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, New York 
 and Chicago, 1888. 
 
 Acta Sanctorum Mali, Tom. 5, Baertio, Fran, et lanningo. Con., Parisiis 
 et Romae, 1866. 
 
 Agus, Josephus, S. J., Epistola Beati Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos, Ratis- 
 bonae et Neo Eboraci, 1888. 
 
 Albertus, Joannes, Hesychii Lexicon, Tom. 2, Lugduni Batavorum, 1746., 
 
 Alford, Henry, The Greek Testament,® Vol. 2, London, 1865. 
 
 Alting, Jacobi, Operum, Tom. 3, Amstelaedami, 1686. 
 
 Bahr, Karl Christ. Wilh., Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus, Vol. 1, Heidel¬ 
 berg, 1837. 
 
 Bardenhewer, Otto, Patrology, The Lives and Works of the Fathers of the 
 Church, Translated from the Second Edition by Thomas J. Shahan, 
 Freiburg im Breisgau and St. Louis, Mo., 1908. 
 
 Barnes, Albert, Notes, Explanatory and Practical on the Epistle to the 
 Romans,^® New York, 1871. 
 
 Baur, Ferdinand Christ., Paulus, Der Apostel Jesu Christi, Stuttgart, 1845. 
 
 Beck, J. T., Erklarung des Briefes Pauli an die Romer, Giitersloh, 1884. 
 
 Beelen, Joan. Theod., Commentarius in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Romanos, 
 Louvanii, 1854. 
 
 Beet, Joseph Agar, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,’ New 
 York, 1891. 
 
 Bekker, Immanuel, Suidae Lexicon, Berolini, 1854. 
 
 Belsham, Thomas, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle, Vol. 1, London, 1822. 
 
 Bengel, John Albert, Gnomon of the New Testament, A New Translation 
 by C. T. Lewis and M. R. Vincent, Vol. 2, Philadelphia, 1861. 
 
 Bernardini a Piconio, Epistolarum B. Pauli Apostoli Triplex Expositio, 
 Tom. 1, Parisiis, 1842. 
 
 Bernstein, Ignaz, Jiidische Sprichworter und Redensarten,^ Warschau, 1908. 
 
 Beyschlag, Willibald, Neutestamentliche Theologie, Vol. 2, Halle a. S., 1892. 
 
 Bibel, Die, Nach der Deutschen Uebersetzung Martin Luthers, Coin, 1876, 
 
 Bisping, August, Erklarung des Briefes an die Romer,® Munster, 1870. 
 
 Bleibtreu, Walter, Der Abschnitt Rom. 3, 21-26, StKr (1883). 
 
 Boehmer, Die Heilslehre des Apostels Paulus nach dem Romerbriefe dar- 
 gestellt, Conitz, 1881. 
 
 Bonaventurae, S. Doctoris, Opera, Tom. 3, Quaracchi, 1887. 
 
 Bosanquet, Edwin, A Verbal Paraphrase of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Rom¬ 
 ans, London, 1840. 
 
 Bree, William Thomas, The Plain Reader’s Help in the Study of the Holy 
 Scriptures, Vol. 2, Coventry, 1822. 
 
 Bretschneider, Car. G., Lexicon Manuale Graeco-Latinum in Libros Novi 
 Testamenti, Tom. 1, Lipsiae, 1829. 
 
 Briggs, Charles Augustus, The Messiah of the Apostles, New York, 1895. 
 
 Brown, David, The Epistle to the Romans, Edinburgh, 1883. 
 
 Brown, Francis, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 
 Based on the Lexicon of W. Gesenius, Boston and New York, 1907. 
 
 Brown, John, An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the 
 Romans, Edinburgh, 1766. 
 
 Bruston, C., Les Consequences du Vrae Sens de lAASTHPION, ZntlW 
 (1906). 
 
 101 
 
10 ^ 
 
 Burkitt, William, Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the 
 New Testament, London, 1716. 
 
 Bushnell, Horace, The Vicarious Sacrifice, Vol. 1, New York, 1877. 
 
 Butler, Alfred J., The Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt, Vol. 2, Oxford, 
 1884. 
 
 Calmet, Augustini, Commentarius Literalis in Omnes Libros Veteris et 
 Novi Testamenti, Ed. Joannes D. Mansi, Tom. 8, Lucae, 1738. 
 
 Calvini, Joannis, Commentarii in Omnes Pauli Apostoli Epistolas, Lute- 
 tiae, 1556. 
 
 Castalione, Sebastiano, Interprete Biblia, Una cum eiusdem Annotationi- 
 bus, Basileae, 1551. 
 
 Chalmers, Thomas, Lectures on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the 
 Eomans, New York, 1854. 
 
 Clark, George W., Eomans and I and II Corinthians, Philadelphia, 1897. 
 (A People’s Commentary.) 
 
 Clarke, James Freeman, The Ideas of the Apostle Paul, Boston, 1884. 
 
 Clericus, Joannes, Epistolae Sanctorum Apostolorum et Apocalypsis S. 
 Joannis,^ Erancofurti, 1714. 
 
 Cone, Orello, Paul, the Man, the Missionary, and the Teacher, London, 
 1898. 
 
 Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, J. S., The Life and the Epistles of St. Paul, 
 Vol. 2, London, 1853. 
 
 Coptic Version, The, of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, other¬ 
 wise called Sahidic and Thebaic, Vol. 4, The Epistles of St. Paul, 
 Oxford, 1920. 
 
 Cornelii a Lapide, S. J., Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram accurate 
 recognovit ac notis illustravit Augustinus Crampton, Tom. 1, Parisiis, 
 1859, Tom. 18, Parisiis, 1861. 
 
 Comely, Eudolfus, S. J., Commentarius in S. Pauli Apostoli Epistolas. 
 Epistola ad Eomanos, Parisiis, 1896. (Cursus Scripturae Sacrae.) 
 
 Cowles, Henry, The Longer Epistle of Paul, viz., Eomans, I and II Cor¬ 
 inthians, New York, 1880. 
 
 Cremer, Hermann, Biblisch-theologisches Wdrterbuch der Neutestament- 
 lichen Gracitat,® Gotha, 1902. 
 
 Critici Sacri, Tom. 7, Exhibens Annotata in Epistolam ad Eomanos, etc., 
 Amstelaedami, 1698. 
 
 Daniel, Hermanns A., Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae Orientalis, Tom. 4, 
 Lipsiae, 1853. 
 
 Deissmann, Adolf, Bible Studies,® Authorized Translation by Alexander 
 Grieve, Edinburgh, 1909. 
 
 Deissmann, Adolf, IAA2THP102 und lAASTHPION, Eine Lexikalische 
 Studie, ZntlW (1903). 
 
 Denney, James, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Eomans, London, 1900. (Exposi¬ 
 tor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 2.) 
 
 De Wette, W. M. L., Kurze Erklarung des Briefes an die Eomer,* Leipzig, 
 1847. 
 
 Dibellius, Martin, Die Lade Jahves, Eine Eeligionsgeschichtliche Unter- 
 suchung, Gottingen, 1906. 
 
 Dillmann, August, Die Bucher Exodus und Leviticus,® Leipzig, 1897. 
 
 Diodati, John, Pious and Learned Annotations upon the Holy Bible,® 
 London, 1651. 
 
 Drummond, James, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessaloniaris, 
 Corinthians, Galatians, Eomans and Philippians, New York and Lon¬ 
 don, 1899. 
 
 DuCange, Carolus, Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Graeci- 
 tatis, Tom. 1, Lugduni, 1688. 
 
 Eisenmenger, Johannes Andreas, Entdecktes Judenthum, Konigsberg in 
 Preussen, 1711. 
 
103 
 
 Eisner, Jacobi, Observationes Sacrae in Novi Foederis Libros, Toni. 2, 
 Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1728. 
 
 Encyclopaedia Biblica, Edited by T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black, 
 Vol. 4, London, 1903. 
 
 Estii, Guilielmi, In Omnes D. Pauli Epistolas, item in Catholicas, Com- 
 mentarii, Tom. 1, Moguntiae, 1858. 
 
 Feine, Paul, Tlieologie des Neuen Testaments,^ Leipzig, 1912. 
 
 Field, Fridericus, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, save Veterum 
 Interpretum Graecorum in Totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta, 
 Tom. 1, Oxonii, 1875. 
 
 Flavii, Josephi, Opera, quae reperiri potuerunt. Omnia, Ed. Joannes Hud¬ 
 son, Oxonii, 1720. 
 
 Forbes, John, Analytical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Edin¬ 
 burgh, 1868. 
 
 Ford, D. B., Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Philadelphia, 1889.- 
 
 Fritzsche, Car. Frid. Aug., Pauli ad Romanos Epistola, Tom. 1, Halls Saxo- 
 num, 1836. 
 
 Funke, George, Ein Dogmatisch-exegetischer Versuch iiber Rom. 3, 25 und 
 26, StKr (1842), 
 
 Gaebelein, A. C., The Epistle to the Romans, New York, 1916. 
 
 Gesenii, Gulielmi, Thesaurus Philologicus Criticus Linguae Hebraeae et 
 Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti, Tom. 2, Lipsiae, 1839. 
 
 Gifford, E. H., Commentary on Romans, New York, 1886. (The Bible 
 Commentary, Vol. 3.) 
 
 Godet, F., Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Translated 
 from the French by A. Cusin; Translation Revised and Edited by 
 Talbot W. Chambers, New York, 1889. 
 
 Godwin, John H., The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, London, 
 1873. 
 
 Goldschmidt, Lazarus, Her Babylonische Talmud, 8 Vols., Berlin, 1897-1914. 
 
 Gray, James C., The Biblical Museum, A Collection of Notes to the Holy 
 Scriptures, Revised by G. M. Adams, Vol. 2, New York, 1898. 
 
 Grenfell, B. P. and Hunt, A. S., Fayum Towns and their Papyri, London, 
 1900. 
 
 Grimm, Carlo Lud. Willib., Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in Libros Novi Testa¬ 
 menti, Lipsiae, 1868. 
 
 Grotii, Hugonis, Operum Theologicorum, Tomus Tertius continens Annota- 
 tiones in Epistolas Apostolicas ©t Apocalypsim, Basileae, 1732. 
 
 Gurlitt, J. F. K., Studien zur Erklarung Rom. 3, 25, StKr (1840). 
 
 Guyse, John, The Practical Expositor or an Exposition of the New Testa¬ 
 ment,^ Vol. 3, Edinburgh, 1775. 
 
 Hammond, H., A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the 
 New Testament, London, 1702. 
 
 Hastings, James, Dictionary of the Bible, edited by. New York, 1909. 
 
 Hastings, James, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by. New 
 York, Vol. 1, 1908; Vol. 5, 1914; Vol. 10, 1920; Vol. 11, 1921. 
 
 Hastings, James, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, New York, 
 1918. 
 
 Henry, Mathew, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament, Vol. 9, 
 London, 1866. 
 
 Hesychii, Lexicon, Ex autographis partim recensuit, partim nunc primum 
 edidit, suasque adimadversiones perpetuas adjecit Joannes Alberti, 
 Tom. 2, Lugduni Batavorum, 1766. 
 
 Hobart, Alvah S., Transplanted Truths or Expositions of Great Texts in 
 Romans, Philadelphia, 1919. 
 
 Hodge, Charles, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, London, 
 1837. 
 
 Hofmann, J. Chr. K. v., Der Schriftbeweis, der zweilen Ilillfte erste Abteil- 
 ung, Nbrdlingen, 1853. 
 
104 
 
 Hofmann, J. Chr. K. v., Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments, Dritter 
 Teil, Nordlingen, 1868. 
 
 Holden, George, The Christian Expositor, Vol. 2, New Testament, London 
 (no date). 
 
 Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius, Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie,® 
 Tubingen, 1911. 
 
 Horner, G., The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern 
 Dialect, Vol. 3, Oxford, 1905. 
 
 Jacobs, Henry E., Annotations on the Epistles of Paul to the Komans and 
 I Corinthians, Chaps. I-VI, New York, 1896. (Lutheran Commentary, 
 Vol. 7.) 
 
 Jowett, Benjamin, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Gala¬ 
 tians, and Komans,^ Vol. 2, London, 1859. 
 
 Jiilicher, Adolf, Der Brief an die Kbmer, Gottingen, 1908. (Die Schriften 
 des Neuen Testamentes,^ Band 2.) 
 
 Kahnis, Karl Fried. Aug., Die Lutherische Dogmatik, Vol. 1, Leipzig, 1861. 
 
 Kneeland, Abner, The New Testament in Greek and English, Vol. 2, Phila¬ 
 delphia, 1823. 
 
 Knight, Kobert, A Critical Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul the 
 Apostle to the Homans, London, 1854. 
 
 Konig, Edward, Historisch-Kritisches Lehrgebaude der Hebraischen 
 Sprache, Vol. 2, Leipzig, 1895. 
 
 Koppe, Joh. Benj., Novum Testamentum Graece,® Tom. 4, Gottingae, 1824. 
 
 Kraus, F. X., Real-Encyclopadie der Christlichen Alterthiimer, Freiburg 
 im Breisgau, Band 1, 1882, Band 2, 1886. 
 
 Kruger, Theodor, Die Eechtfertigung nach dem Lehrbegriff des Briefes 
 Pauli an die Romer, Bromberg, 1892. 
 
 Kypke, Georgii Davidis, Observationes Sacrae in Novi Foederis Libros, 
 Tom. 1, Wratislaviae, 1755. 
 
 Lagarde de, Paul, Uebersicht iiber die im Aramaischen, Arabischen, und 
 Hebraischen iibliche Bildung der Nomina, Gottingen, 1889. 
 
 LaGrange, P. M. J., Saint Paul Epitre aux Romains, Paris, 1916. 
 
 Lange, John Peter, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Translated from 
 the German by J. F. Hurst, Revised, enlarged and edited by P. Schaff, 
 New York, 1870. (A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 5.) 
 
 Lattey, Cuthbert, S. J., The Epistle to the Romans, London, 1920. (West¬ 
 minster Version of the Sacred Scriptures, Vol. 3, Part 4.) 
 
 Lechner, Petrus, Die Heilige Schrift des Neuen Testamentes, Miinchen, 
 1881. 
 
 Liddell, Henry G. and Scott, Robert, A Greek-English Lexicon,® New York, 
 1897. 
 
 Lightfoot, J. B., Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1904. 
 
 Lipsius, Richard A., Die Paulinisohe Rechtfertigungslehre, Leipzig, 1853. 
 
 Locke, John, A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of Paul to the Gala¬ 
 tians, Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesians, London, 1824. (The 
 Works of J. Locke, Vol. 7.) 
 
 Luthardt, Chr. Ernst, Der Brief Pauli an die Romer, Nordlingen, 1887. 
 
 MacEvilly, John, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul and of the 
 Catholic Epistles, Vol. 1, Dublin, 1898. 
 
 McGarvey, J. W. and Pendleton, P. Y., Thessalonians, Corinthians, Gala¬ 
 tians, and Romans, Cincinnati, 1916. (The Standard Bible Com¬ 
 mentary. ) 
 
 Macknight, James, A New Literal Translation from the Original Greek 
 of all the Apostolical Epistles, Philadelphia, 1835. 
 
 Menochii, Joannis Stephani, Commentarii Totius Sacrae Scripturae, Tom. 
 2, Avenione, 1768. 
 
 Meyer, Heinrich, Aug. Wilh., Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch iiber den 
 Brief des Paulus an die Romer,* Gottingen, 1865. 
 
105 
 
 Miller, John, Commentary of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Princeton, 
 1887. 
 
 Morison, James, A Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter of Paul’s 
 Epistle to the Romans, London, 1866. 
 
 Moule, Handley, C. G., The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 
 Cambridge, 1879. (The Cambridge Bible.) 
 
 Moule, Handley C. G., The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, New York, 
 1894. (The Expositor’s Bible.) 
 
 Moulton, J. H. and Milligan, G., The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 
 London, Parts I and II, 1915, Part IV, 1920. 
 
 New Testament, The, In an improved Version upon the Basis of Arch¬ 
 bishop Newcome’s New Translation, Boston, 1809. 
 
 Olshausen, Herman, Biblical Commentary on the New Testament, Trans¬ 
 lated from the German for Foreign Theological Library, revised after 
 the Fourth German Edition by A. C. Kendrick, Vol. .3, New York, 1863. 
 
 Orfali, Gaudentius, 0. F. M., De Area Foederis, Parisiis, 1918. 
 
 Otto, E., Erklarung des Briefes Pauli an die Romer, St. Louis, 1883. 
 
 Paige, Lucius R., A Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 4, The Epis¬ 
 tle to the Romans, Boston, 1857. 
 
 Parry, R. St. John, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Cam¬ 
 bridge, 1912. 
 
 Paton, W. R. and Hicks, E. L., The Inscriptions of Cos, Oxford, 1891. 
 
 Philippi, Friedrich Adolph, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the 
 Romans, Translated from the Third Improved and Enlarged Edition 
 by J. S. Banks, Vol. 1, Edinburgh, 1878. 
 
 Philonis, Judaei, Opera Quae Reperiri Potuerunt Omnia, etc., Ed. Thomas 
 Mangey, London, 1742. 
 
 Plumer, William S., Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, New 
 York, 1870. 
 
 Pool, Mathew, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, Vol. 3, New York, 1853. 
 
 Prat, F., La Theologie de Saint Paul,^ Premiere Partie, Paris, 1913. 
 
 Preuschen, Edwin, Griechisch-Deutsches Handworterbuch zu den Schriften 
 des Neuen Testamentes, Gieszen, 1910. 
 
 Priestley, Joseph, Notes on all the Books of Scripture, Vol. 4, Northum¬ 
 berland, 1804. 
 
 Rashdall, Hastings, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology, London, 
 1920. 
 
 Reischl, Wilhelm, Die Heilige Schrift des Neuen Testaments, Regensburg, 
 1866. 
 
 Ripley, Henry J., The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, Boston, 
 1857. 
 
 Ritschl, Albrecht, Die Christliche Lehre von der Rechfertigung und Ver- 
 sohnung,^ Vol. 2, Bonn, 1882. 
 
 Robertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light 
 of Historical Research,® New York, 1919. 
 
 Robinson, Edward, A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, 
 Boston, 1836. 
 
 Rosenmulleri, Jo. Georgii, Scholia in Novum Testamentum, Tom. 3, No- 
 rimbergae, 1829. 
 
 Riickert, L. J., Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Romer, Vol. 1, 
 Leipzig, 1839. 
 
 Salianus, Jacobus, Annalium Ecclesiasticorum Veteris Testamenti Epitome, 
 Rothomagi, 1655. 
 
 Sanday, William and Headlam, Arthur, The Epistle to the Romans, New 
 York, 1922. (International Critical Commentary.) 
 
 Sanders, Daniel, Worterbuch der Deutschen Sprache, Vol. 1, Leipzig, 1876. 
 
 Schaefer, Aloys, Erklhrung des Briefes an die Romer, MUnster i. W., 1891. 
 
 Schaff, Philip, A Popular Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 3, 
 Edinburgh, 1883. 
 
106 
 
 Schleusner, Joh. Fried., Novns Thesaurus Philologico-Criticus, Sive Lexi¬ 
 con in LXX et Eeliquos Interpretes Graecos ac Scriptures Apocryphos 
 Veteris Testamenti, Tom. 3, Lipsiae, 1821. 
 
 Schleusner, Joh. Fried., Novum Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in Novum Testa- 
 mentum, Tom. 1, Londini, 1829. 
 
 Schweizer, Alex., Die Lelure des Apostels Paulus vom Erldsenden Tode 
 Christi, StKr (1858). 
 
 Scofield, Cyrus I., The New Testament and Psalms, New York, 1920. 
 
 Seeberg, Alfred, Der Tod Christi in Seiner Bedeutung fiir die Erldsung, 
 Leipzig, 1895. 
 
 Shedd, William G. T., A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary upon the 
 Epistle of St. Paul to the Eomans, New York, 1893. 
 
 Sheldon, Henry C., New Testament Theology, New York, 1911. 
 
 Sickenberger, Joseph, Die Beiden Briefe des HI. Paulus and die Korinther, 
 und sein Brief an die Eomer, Bonn, 1919. 
 
 Stevens, George Baker, The Theology of the New Testament, New York, 
 1899. 
 
 Stiller, James M., The Epistle to the Eomans, New York, 1897. 
 
 Storrer, J., Der Brief Pauli an die Eomer, Buffalo, 1890. 
 
 Stuart, Moses, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Eomans,^ London, 1853. 
 
 Suiceri, Joh. Caspar!, Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus e Patribus Graecis,® Tom. 1, 
 Trajecti ad Ehenum, 1746. 
 
 Suidae Lexicon, Graece et Latine, Tom. 2, Ed. Ludolphus Kusterus, Canta- 
 brigiae, 1705. 
 
 Taylor, John A., A Paraphrase with Notes on the Epistle to the Eomans,® 
 London, 1754. 
 
 Thayer, Joseph Henry, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 
 Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti, Translated, Eevised 
 and Enlarged, New York, 1889. 
 
 Tholuck, Friedrich Aug. Gott., Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Eomer,® 
 Berlin, 1828. 
 
 Tirini, Jacobi, In Universam S. Scripturam Commentarius, Tom. 4, Tau- 
 rini, 1883. 
 
 Tixeront, J., A Handbook of Patrology, Authorized Translation, Based 
 upon the Fourth French Edition, St. Louis, 1920. 
 
 Tostati, Alphonsi, Operum, Tom. 2, Continens Commentaria in Exodum, 
 Colon!ae Aggrippinae, 1613. 
 
 Trollope, William, Analecta Theologica, A Critical, Philological, and Exe- 
 getical Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 2, London, 1842. 
 
 Usteri, Leonhard, Entwicklung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes,^ Zurich, 
 1834. 
 
 Vaughan, C. J., St. Paul’s Epistle to the Eomans with Notes, London, 
 1893. 
 
 Vincent, Marvin E., Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 3, New 
 York, 1890. 
 
 Vitringa, Campegi, Archisynagogus Observationibus Novis Illustratus, 
 Franequerae, 1686. 
 
 Wahl, Christ. Abraham, Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica,® Lipsiae, 
 1843. 
 
 Wardlaw, Ealph, Two Essays: I, On the Assurance of Faith, II, On the 
 Extent of the Atonement and Universal Pardon, New York, 1830. 
 
 Weber, Ferdinand, Vom Zorne Gottes, Erlangen, 1862. 
 
 Weidner, Eevere Franklin, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, New 
 York. 
 
 Weigand, Fr. L. K., Deutsches Worterbuch, Herausgegeben von Hermann 
 Hirt, Vol. 1, Gieszen, 1909. 
 
 Weinel, H., St. Paul, The Man, and His Work, Translated by G. A. Biene- 
 mann and Edited by W. D. Morrison, London, 1906. 
 
107 
 
 Weiss, Bernhard, Die Paulinischen Briefe und der Hebriierbrief,^ Leipzig, 
 1902. 
 
 Weiss, Bernhard, Das Xeue Testament nacb D. Martin Luthers berichtiger 
 Uebersetzung, Vol. 2, Leipzig, 1907. 
 
 Wbedon, D. D., Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 3, New York, 
 1871. 
 
 Whitby, Daniel, A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old and 
 New Testament, Vol. 4, Philadelphia, 1864. 
 
 Winer, George Benedict, A Grammar of the New Testament Diction, Trans¬ 
 lated from the Sixthj Edition of the Original by Edward Masson, 
 Edinburgh, 1861. 
 
 Winer, George Benedict, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprach- 
 idioms, Achte Auflage neubearbeitet von Paul W. Schmiedel, Vol. 1, 
 Gottingen, 1894. 
 
 Wordsworth, Chr., The New Testament of Our Lord and Savioi? Jesus 
 Christ in the Original Greek, London, 1861. 
 
 Zahn, Theodor, Der Brief des Paulus an die Bomer,^ Leipzig, 1910. 
 
 Zeller, Paul, Biblisches Handworterbuch,® Stuttgart, 1912. 
 
 Zimmern, H., Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament,® Berlin, 1903. 
 
 Zorell, Fran. S. J., Novi Testamenti Lexicon Graecum, Parisiis, 1911. 
 

Universitas Catholic a Americae 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 S. Facultas Theologica, 1922-1923 
 
 No. 21. 
 
 THESES 
 
DEUS LUX MEA 
 
 THESES 
 
 QUAS 
 
 AD DOCTORIS GRADUM 
 IN 
 
 SACRA THEOLOGIA 
 
 APUD UNIVERSITATEM CATHOLICAM AMERICAE 
 
 CON-SEQUENDUM 
 PUBLICE PROPUGNABIT 
 ROMUALDUS ALPHONSUS MOLLAUN"^ 0. F. M. 
 PROVINCIAE S. JOANNIS BAPTISTAE CINCINNATENSIS 
 SACRAE THEOLOGIAE LICENTIATUS 
 
l» 
 
 £ 
 
THESES 
 
 I 
 
 The importance of Rome for the propagation of Christianity was the 
 motive for St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans. 
 
 II 
 
 The humanitarian and universalistic ideas of Stoicism, which were 
 permeating Roman society at the time of the epistle to the Romans, paved 
 the way for the new universalism of the gospel of Christ. 
 
 III 
 
 At the time of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans the Jewish element in 
 the Roman community was well organized, influential, and enjoyed impe¬ 
 rial privileges. 
 
 IV 
 
 The Gentiles in the Roman community, who sought a higher notion of 
 God and who observed a part of the Jewish law constituted a fertile seed 
 plot for Christianity. 
 
 V 
 
 The arguments adduced by modern criticism to explain the foundation 
 of the Church at Rome by some disciples of St. Paul are not conclusive. 
 
 VI 
 
 The best substantiated and more probable opinion is that the Church 
 at Rome was founded by St. Peter. 
 
 VII 
 
 In the introduction to the epistle to the Romans (I, 1-7) St. Paul sets 
 forth a remarkable theological compendium. 
 
 VIII 
 
 In New Testament writings SiKaiou does not signify to declare righteous, 
 but to make righteous by the removal of sin. 
 
 IX 
 
 'IXoar-^piov in Rom. Ill, 25 designates Christ as the real sacrificial place 
 of expiation and propitiation. 
 
 X 
 
 The literary source for the Pauline 
 the LXX. 
 
 XI 
 
 usage of IXaffT'qpiov 
 
 was ultimately 
 
 That the Pauline term in Rom. Ill, 25 describes Christ as the reality 
 of the Old Testament symbol is distinctly shown by the unanimous testi¬ 
 mony of the Greek Fathers. 
 
 XII 
 
 Deissmann’s interpretation of VKacrripiov in Rom. Ill, 25 as a means of 
 expiation or propitiation or as a propitiatory gift is a perversion of the 
 natural historical development of the term. 
 
 XIII 
 
 The application of the term IXaarripLop to statues and monuments de¬ 
 mands the meaning of a real or symbolic place of expiation and propi¬ 
 tiation. 
 
 8 
 
 113 
 
114 - 
 
 XIV 
 
 The application of the term IXacT'^piov to churches, monasteries, sanctu¬ 
 aries, altars, etc., and also the characteristic tendency of words ending in 
 Trjpiov offer further evidence that the fundamental meaning of the word is 
 that of locality. 
 
 XV 
 
 In Rom. Ill, 25 the phrases “ through faith ” and “ in His blood ” refer 
 to the reality of Christ’s sacrifice. 
 
 XVI 
 
 In profane Greek literature the root-verb IXdaKeadai contains the ele¬ 
 ments of expiation and propitiation, which were accomplished by the 
 means of sacrifice or offering. 
 
 XVII 
 
 The omission of chapters XV and XVI of the epistle to the Romans in 
 several MSS. and some Fathers is due to the influence exercised by the 
 text of Marcion. 
 
 XVIII 
 
 Despite the difficulties surrounding the address of salutation in Rom. 
 XVI, 1-24, the integrity of these verses can be successfully defended. 
 
 XIX 
 
 The literary problem in the Synoptic question cannot be solved by the 
 so-called theory of Oral Tradition. 
 
 XX 
 
 The best solution to the Synoptic problem seems to be that the evan¬ 
 gelists made use of pre-gospel sources, which originated in Jerusalem. 
 
 XXI 
 
 Many objections of modern criticism against the Mosaic authorship of 
 the Pentateuch can be satisfactorily answered by applying the principles 
 enunciated by the Biblical Commission on June 27, 190fi. 
 
 XXII 
 
 The arguments advanced by the advocates of the development hypo¬ 
 thesis against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch are neither con¬ 
 clusive nor convincing. 
 
 XXIII 
 
 The external and internal evidence furnishes a powerful argument for 
 the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. 
 
 XXIV 
 
 The numerous and striking coincidences between the biblical (Gen. I, 1- 
 II, 4) and the Assyro-Babylonian account of the creation, must be explained 
 by this that both had for a common basis an early tradition. 
 
 XXV 
 
 The similarities between the scriptural report of the flood and that of 
 the Gilgamgs Epos do not postulate a dependence of the former upon the 
 latter. 
 
 XXVI 
 
 A comparison of Hammurabi’s laws with the Mosaic decrees reveals 
 some similarities, but there is no suggestion that the latter are modeled 
 upon or borrowed from the former. 
 
 XXVII 
 
 The differences in the canon of the Old Testament, as formulated by the 
 
115 
 
 Council of Trent and that defended by Origen and St. Jerome, may be 
 accounted for by the different tests of canonicity used. 
 
 XXVIII 
 
 The view of some critics that the discourses of Eliu (Job. XXXI, 1- 
 XXXVII, 24) are a later interpolation is untenable from a linguistic as 
 well as from the contextual standpoint. 
 
 XXIX 
 
 Rom. T, 18-23 plainly manifests a literary dependence on Wis. XII, 24- 
 XIII, 10. 
 
 XXX 
 
 The Old Testament usage of iXdcrKeadai —15? shows that the term con¬ 
 tains the notions of expiation and propitiation, which were ordinarily 
 effected by the means of sacrifice. 
 
 XXXI 
 
 The existence of God can be certainly known by the natural light of 
 human reason through created things. 
 
 XXXII 
 
 Holy Scripture and Patristic teaching bear testimony to the immediate 
 creation by God of the body and soul of the first man. 
 
 XXXIII 
 
 St. PauPs doctrine on justification is clearly set forth in Rom. Ill, 21-30. 
 
 XXIV 
 
 Patristic exegesis offers conclusive evidence that the term iXacTi^pLov in 
 Rom. Ill, 25 contains a profession of Christ’s divinity. 
 
 XXV 
 
 “ The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a 
 singular grace and privilege granted to her by Almighty God, through the 
 merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of mankind, was preserved from all stain 
 of original sin.” (Ineffabilis Deus, Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1854.) 
 
 XXXVI 
 
 The wonderful cures of Christ cannot adequately be explained as effects 
 brought about through the natural agency of powerful suggestion. 
 
 XXXVII 
 
 The miracles related of Jesus in the Gospels, resting as they do on the 
 unimpeachable testimony of eye-witnesses, cannot rightly be impugned. 
 
 XXXVIII 
 
 The conviction of the Apostles that Jesus arose from the dead, cannot 
 satisfactorily be accounted for apart from the reality of the resurrection, 
 
 XXXIX 
 
 The note of Catholicity is verified in the Roman Catholic Church alone. 
 
 XL 
 
 A strong proof of the divine origin of Christianity is to be found in its 
 extraordinary spread in the first two centuries. 
 
 XLI 
 
 The theory of Kant, that a person has a right to do everything that 
 does not interfere with the equal liberty of others, is incapable of appli¬ 
 cation if interpreted objectively; understood in a completely subjective 
 sense, it would justify and legalize unlawful conduct. 
 
116 
 
 XLII 
 
 The assertion that rights are derived from society, that they exist for a 
 social end, and shauld be exercised chiefly for the social welfare, is unjus¬ 
 tifiable and unwarranted. 
 
 XLIII 
 
 Certain rights of every individual are not conferred upon him by society, 
 but are a prerogative of his rational nature. 
 
 XLIV 
 
 The obligation and the right of providing education for the child belong, 
 by natural law, primarily to the parents. 
 
 XLV 
 
 State monopoly of education abrogates the fundamental rights of the 
 parents as well as those of the Church. 
 
 XLVI 
 
 The Sacraments of the New Testament are really and truly efficient 
 causes ex opere operate, producing their effects independently of the merits 
 and disposition of the recipient. 
 
 XLVII 
 
 The valid administration of a Sacrament requires on the part of the 
 minister the intention faciendi quod facit Ecclesia. 
 
 XLVIII 
 
 Baptism may be administered either by effusion, immersion or aspersion. 
 
 XLIX 
 
 For the valid administration of Extreme Unction the recipient must be 
 baptized, dangerously ill, and morally responsible. 
 
 L 
 
 It may be held as the more probable opinion that the matter of the 
 Sacrament of sacerdotal ordination consists in the second imposition of 
 hands —manuum extensio; the accompanying prayer of the bishop consti¬ 
 tuting the form. 
 
 LI 
 
 Oanones 762-769. 
 
 LII 
 
 Canones 1060-1062. 
 
 LIU 
 
 Canones 1063‘-1065. 
 
 LIV 
 
 Canones 1095-1096. 
 
 LV 
 
 Canones 1250-1254. 
 
 LVI 
 
 Although the precise year of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius of Antioch 
 cannot be determined, the approximate date is probably between 107-110 
 A. D. 
 
 LVII 
 
 The distinction between the priesthood and the episcopate, and the supe¬ 
 riority of the former over the diaconate, is distinctly set forth in the 
 epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch. 
 
117 
 
 LVIII 
 
 The importance of St. Polycarp of Smyrna as a witness for early ecclesi¬ 
 astical tradition is vouched for by his intimate relations with the Apostle 
 St. John, with his contemporaries, and with his own disciples. 
 
 LIX 
 
 Although the principles of religious freedom and equality had made 
 progress during the war of the American Revolution, the Constitutions 
 adopted by the several States and the laws passed to regulate the new 
 governments established, show that religious intolerance had not been 
 removed. 
 
 LX 
 
 Despite the diflBculties with which it had to contend, the Catholic Church 
 in the early history of the United States made constant progress both 
 materially and spiritually. 
 
 Vidit Sacra Facultas: 
 
 Carolus F. Aiken, S. T. D., p. t. Decanus 
 Henricus Schumacher, S. T. D., p. t. a Secretis 
 
 Vidit Rector Universitatis: 
 
 Thomas J. Shahan, S. T. D. 
 
BIOGEAPHICAL 
 
 Eomuald Alphonse Mollaun was born at Oldenburg, Indiana, 
 September 26, 1894. He received his elementary education at Holy 
 Family School, Oldenburg, Indiana, and his classical training at 
 St. Francis Preparatory Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio, whereupon he 
 entered the Order of Friars Minor, August 15, 1913. After his 
 religious profession he pursued the prescribed courses in philosophy 
 and theology and was ordained to the priesthood June 11, 1920. 
 In the fall of the same year he matriculated at the Catholic Uni¬ 
 versity of America and pursued courses in the School of the Sacred 
 Sciences, specializing in Hew Testament exegesis. He obtained the 
 degrees of S. T. B. and S. T. L. in 1921. 
 
I 
 
 ^ ^ f I 
 
:L 
 
 :r/r LI'/I‘ vio 
 
 ! I. 
 
 I <) I:n > 
 
 
 ill 
 
 ' > .• 
 
 i 
 
 i. • 
 
 If 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 ■JUh ® i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 THE LIBRARY STORE #47-0207 
 
».»■'« i • 
 
 k'i *' • *,«?• !•',.>!'•.* 
 
 Kr'«r« k % )l! kl *'* ’* 
 
 '-V' • »■ • •• •' •; it *. • ♦* *1 
 
 |>rl I kuri* I't a > all a; a-a aiaaiv •! a ila