> So, my questions are:
>
> 1. Does anyone happen to have S and H at hand so that s/he can set
> me straight on what they claim, and how they end up interpreting the
> verse.
I am able to oblige.
"hILASTHRION: usually subst. meaning strictly 'place or vehicle of
propititiation', but originally neut. of adj. hILASTHRIOS . . . In LXX
of the Pentateuchy, as in Heb. 9.5, the word constantly stands for the
"lid of the ark", or "mercy-seat", so called from the fact of its
being sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifices on the Day of
Atonement. A number of the best authorities . . . take the word here
in this sense, arguing (i) that it suits the emphatic AUTOU in EN TWi
AUTOU hAIMATI; (ii) that through LXX it would be by far the most
familiar usage; (iii) that the Greek commentators . . . unanimously
give it this sense; (iv) that the idea is specially appropriate
inasmuch as on Christ rests the fulness of the Divine glory, 'the true
Shekinah' and it is natural to connect with His Death the culminating
rite in the culminating service of Atonement. But, on the other hand,
there is great harshness, not to say confusion, in making Christ at
once priest and victim and place of sprinkling. Origen it is true
does not shrink from this . . . (in Rom. iii.8). But although there
is a partial analogy for this in Heb. 9.11-14, 23 - 10.22, where
Christ is both priest and victim, it is straining the image yet
further to identify Him with the hILASTHRION. The Christian
hILASTHRION, or 'place of sprinkling', in the literal sense, is rather
the Cross. It is also something of a point (if we are right in giving
the sense of publicity to PROEQETO) that the sprinkling fo the
mercy-seat was just the one rite which was withdrawn from the sight of
the people. Another way of taking hILASTHRION is to supply it with
QUMA on the analogy of SWTHRION, TELESTHRION, XARISTHRION. This too
is strongly supported (esp. by the leading German commentators . . .).
But there seems to be no clear instance of hILASTHRION used in this
sense. Neither is there satisfactory proof that hILAST. (subst.) = in
a general sense "instrument or means of propitiation'. It appears
therefore simplest to take it as adj. accus. masc. added as predicate
to hON. There is evidence that the word was current as an adj. at
this date . . . The objection that the adj. is not applied properly to
persons counts for very little, because of the extreme rarity of the
sacrifice of a person. Here however it is just this personal element
which is most important. It agrees with the context that the term
chosen should be rather one which generalizes the character of
propitiatory sacrifice than one which exactly reproduces a particular
feature of such sacrifice.' (Sanday and Headlam, *A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans* (ICC; 5th edition;
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902 [1st ed., 1895]), pp. 87-8.
> 2. As I, again most vaguely, recall, there was a discussion
> somewhere about this passage, and somebody or other claimed it did
> not refer to Yom Kippur in any way. Was that on Crosstalk, and if
> so, what was the gist of the discussion?
I seem to remember that there was one on b-greek which you may be
able to unearth from the archives.
With good wishes
Mark
------------------------
Mark Goodacre
Department of Theology
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham B15 2TT
Tel.: +44 (0)121 414 7512 Email: M.S.Goodacre@Bham.ac.uk
Fax.: +44 (0)121 414 6866 Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre.htm