How should ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion) be translated in Romans 3:25?

Question

The word ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion) is often translated in Romans 3:25 as "propiation," "atonement," or "sacrifice [of atonement]" in Western conservative biblical translations. In Hebrews 9:5 it is generally translated as "mercy seat" or "atonement cover," where this is the clear meaning of the word (the NET also translates Romans 3:25 this way). Translations of 4 Maccabees 17:22 render it as "propitiation," "expiation," or "atoning sacrifice." I am unaware of any other uses of the term in biblical or other early works.

Are there any other known instances of this word in first or second century writings? Is rendering ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion) as "mercy seat" in Romans 3:25 more faithful to the text, or is it better to use a theological term to clarify the concept for readers as is often done? If a theological term should be used, should it be 'propitiation' or would 'expiation' be a better term in light of the context?

This is not intended to be a doctrinal argument about theories of atonement, please keep responses focused on the text. I posted a corresponding question here to discuss the theological implications of propitiation vs. expiation.

Answer 1

I would suggest that propitiation, expiation and mercy seat are all viable options. My reasoning is based on theological and linguistic insights.

I subscribe to the linguistic theory of signs and signification. Words are considered signs and their meaning is derived (signified) by the real word entities they point to. When we communicate using the word "car," for instance, the communication works because the participants all have had experiences with "cars" and can therefore decipher the meaning of the word. One interesting thing about this scheme is that names are chosen based on one singular aspect of the object they represent. A "stroller" points to the fact that one can go on a stroll with a baby. The word (sign) "baby carriage" points to the same real world object (signifier) but instead of using its function for the word (sign) it uses a description of the object - a carriage for babies. It does not indicate that one can go on a stroll but this use of a baby carriage is possible and most likely implied. Another common method for creating words is the use of metaphor. A computer "mouse" looks like the rodent. The "legs" of a table have a similar function to that found with animals. The point I'm trying to make is twofold: 1.) words point to and are signified by real world entities and 2.) these entities have more characteristics, uses and functions than the name would indicate in a strictly literal interpretation of the word. A third thing about words I'd like to mention is that in most case they have the theoretical capability of referring (being signified by) various real world entities ("mouse" for instance). In order to determine what real world entity a word is pointing to one requires the surrounding context of it's usage and many times this is not enough to uniquely identify things.

Now the word ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion) in its most literal sense refers to the mercy seat (kapporet) which covered the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:17ff.). It makes sense that the translation in Heb 9:5 sticks to the formal naming convention of mercy seat since the purpose of the passage is a description of the ark and cheribum etc. in their original setting. However, Romans 3:25 is a different situation. It is describing a theological aspect of what Jesus death on the cross accomplished. The theological reality of what Jesus death (and resurrection) accomplished is related to but also different from the the original old testament imagery in many ways. Keep in mind that even in the old testament usage the "mercy seat" in the real world had specific functions and uses. All of these can be indicated by the use of the term "mercy seat." The usage of ἱλαστήριον in Romans is based on the old testament realities but is not identical to them. On one level the "mercy seat" is a metaphor explaining what Jesus accomplished. Also the theological realities of what occurred have changed. This is where a particular theological outlook would influence exegesis and even translation. My position is that the OT cult was a picture of what was to come. One thing that complicates matters further becomes clear when one considers roles and functions. In the original context the "Mercy Seat" was a place located in the holy of holies. At this place blood from a lamb was sprinkled on it by a priest. There are at least three separate things which come together in the original cult handling. My understanding is that Jesus combines these roles and function into one person, himself. He (the cross) is the place where it all occurs, he is the high priest and he is also the lamb supplying the blood. Based on that alone I would think sticking with "Mercy Seat" would be a bit limiting.

Dictionary.com defines propitiation as "to make favorably inclined; appease; conciliate." It defines expiation as "to atone for; make amends or reparation for". In my understanding both of these things occurred on the cross. Depending on your perspective one or the other can be emphasized. God the father was appeased because our sins were atoned for. This gets back to my earlier point about words pointing to real word things that have a complex nature. In this case the real world entity is the death (and resurrection) of Jesus on the cross and in particular what God was doing through it. It would seem none of the words is capable of encompassing the entire reality. As a translator one would have to choose the word which best emphasizes the point he/she thinks is being made. Propitiation and expiation would be viable choices for this. If one considers the readers to be astute enough to understand the depth and breadth of the theological realities one could use the word "mercy seat" or perhaps "sacrifice of atonement".

I'm not enough of a language expert or exegete to get into detail about the Greek usage etc. I'm coming from a linguistic, hermeneutical and systematic point of view.

hth

Answer 2

"Propitiation" is the preferred choice of the two since it addresses both the context and the theology of the act. The meaning of propitiation is actually more forceful than how it is normally translated, as "appeasing." Instead, it's more in line with specifically being the object of the direct wrath of the deity in question (in the Greek mind) for transgressions. In this case, Jesus was that - he was the object of God's wrath. The result of how he assumed this wrath was the expiation of sins.

ἱλαστήριον appears in the LXX as the word for the mercy seat which also influenced Tyndale's understanding of the term. Given the thick sacrificial imagery, it's not hard to see why drew such a conclusion, which was actually a German transliteration of the word. However, contemporary Greek understanding of ἱλαστήριον does not necessarily allow for such an understanding. It is specifically related to the cycle of wrath and appeasement between the deities and humans.

Edit:

I guess I am of the opinion that though propitiation and expiation are not antithetical, they are different sides of the coin.

Specific Context:

I understand expiation to be the result and not the means of what Romans 3:25 is describing. I believe that context supports this since Paul is describing the means by which what is understood as "expiation" has been accomplished. The detailed description of the shedding of blood as the means also lends itself to an understanding of "propitiation." This would have been the most natural reading to both the Jewish and Gentile (who would have had little understanding of the "mercy seat"). Additionally, the physical object of the "mercy seat" was not an object of sacrifice, but of meeting. It was the location where YHWH revealed himself to the high priest. The detailed blood imagery would not make sense if Paul (who would have tremendous understanding of Levitical Law) is building toward this as the intended meaning.

Broad Context:

Romans is dedicated to harmonizing the relationships in the Roman church - specifically validating both the Jewish and Gentile believers as part of the same, larger body. Much of the validation of the Gentile (to the Jew) is systematically accomplished through demonstrating the inadequacy of works of the Law of Moses for eternal salvation. However, the work accomplished on the cross by Jesus was sufficient for this outcome.

I do not find "mercy seat" to be a satisfactory, natural reading of this verb given the decidedly mixed audience, and the context of shedding of blood. "Propitiation" as being the object of divine wrath would be a concept that was more accessible to both groups and also satisfied the imagery of blood.

ἱλαστήριον does not literally mean "mercy seat." The LXX translators adopted this word from the Greek (since that was the goal of the LXX) as a means to describe the mercy seat. While this should carry some weight, it is not the deciding factor, given the above information. ἱλαστήριον literally means "propitiation" which was a concept already available within the Greek mind.

Answer 3

I went over this with some pastors. They have the idea that the atonement in both Old and New Testaments do both, propitiate and expiate. But there is a problem here. Why are both done when only one is necessary? That is, if the purpose of atonement is to expiate (cover, cancel out, remove sin) then WHY would God still be angry? So, why did God provide an atonement, because he is upset? He gave atonement out of LOVE. It is because God is merciful that he made atonement available. This is provision for forgiveness. How do you get forgiveness? You need to accept the atonement he provided in repentance and faith.
The OT priests were not PUNISHING the sheep, bulls and goats when they killed them. the purpose of the sacrifices was not to punish the sacrifice in place of the punishment the transgressor deserved. They were the means of reconciliation. This shows God as loving and ready to forgive because he gave the system of atonements as a demonstration of his merciful nature. They were not intended to satisfy or pacify God. It was US who needed to be reconciled to God. The cross was to effect a change in us, NOT IN GOD. Now if atonement consisted in propitiation, the motive for the means of placating God being to satisfy his anger, then where is God's love? Propitiation suggests that Jesus simply bought off the judge. To pay off our 'debt' as theology often asserts, is neither an expression of God's mercy or love, nor is it forgiveness. Forgiveness does not require God to be appeased. Forgiveness is setting aside the desire or need for justice.
People need to get it through their thick heads that forgiveness does not consist in the satisfaction of justice. If justice is satisfied, past, present AND FUTURE, then there are no longer any conditions on which salvation is based. Neither repentance nor faith can ever be required otherwise it would be saying the debt has not been paid. If atonement consists in a paid debt, then salvation is OWED to the one on whose behalf the atonement was made. The person has a right to demand to go to heaven from God if that person's 'debt' has been paid. This 'payment of the debt' theology does not lead to humility.