Today we’re continuing the series on biblical word power. This time, we will seek to use what we have learned about the meaning of some important biblical words so that we can come to grips with a very significant story told by Jesus.
Definitions
To recap our key biblical definitions:
Righteousness = being in line with a standard.
Righteousness of a defendant = being in line with a legal and/or moral standard.
To justify = to declare that a person is indeed righteous (usually in a forensic context, i.e. a law court).
Atonement = dealing with any obstacle to a relationship, especially between God and human beings.
Two kinds of prayer in the temple
We’ll get to Jesus’ parable in a moment. But first, let’s go back to Solomon, the man who built the temple in Jerusalem about 1,000 years before Jesus. Solomon prayed a very significant prayer at the dedication of the temple (2 Chron 6:14-42; see also 1 Kgs 8:22-53).
Solomon begins by acknowledging that God truly dwells in heaven. Yet God has graciously put his presence in this particular temple, and particularly listens to people who pray in that place (2 Chron 6:18-21).
What kinds of prayers does Solomon envisage will be prayed in the temple?
The first kind of prayer is a prayer for the justification of individuals. The temple acts as God’s heavenly law court on earth. At the temple, people can pray to God in heaven and ask for justification. Because God is a righteous judge, he justifies the righteous, and condemns wicked sinners (2 Chron 6:22-23).
The second kind of prayer is a prayer for atonement. The temple is the key place where the obstacles to the relationship between people and God (i.e. the people’s sin and God’s wrath) are dealt with. When sinful people pray and ask for atonement, God grants atonement. Atonement can take place both for Israel as a whole (2 Chron 6:24-40) and for individuals (e.g. 2 Chron 6:29).
Two men who go up to the temple to pray
Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14) is a parable about two men who go up to the temple to pray (v. 10). Clearly, he wants us to remember the two kinds of prayer that Solomon spoke about at the dedication of the temple (see above).
One of the men—the Pharisee—prays a prayer for justification (vv. 10-12). The Pharisee states that he, unlike others, is in line with certain moral and legal standards (vv. 11-12). That is, he states the case for his own righteousness before the heavenly court. Clearly, he is expecting that God in heaven will justify him (i.e. acknowledge that he is indeed righteous).
The other man—the tax collector—prays the other kind of temple-prayer: a prayer for atonement. It is a simple, humble prayer: “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” (v. 13b)
(NB The word he uses is the technical word for atonement, often used in the temple context in the Old Testament).
Yet there is a surprising twist: the Pharisee, who pleads his case for his own righteousness, is not justified—that is, God does not declare that he is righteous. But the tax collector—the sinner who simply asks for atonement—is justified. The man who is expecting justification on the basis of his righteousness doesn’t get it. But the man who asks for atonement receives both atonement and justification before God!
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted. (Luke 18:14)
What’s happening here? If we look back at the start of the parable, we get a clue. The issue Jesus is dealing with is self-righteousness: Jesus tells the parable to people who are confident that they are righteous on the basis of themselves (v. 9).
The implication is that there is another basis for justification other than our own moral or legal righteousness! Somehow, God, in his heavenly law court, can look at a sinner who has asked for atonement, and declare that this sinner is indeed righteous. But that same God in that same heavenly law court can look at another man who claims to be righteous (i.e. in line with legal and moral standards), and yet not make the declaration that he is righteous at all!
Justification and atonement
What is happening? It is a radical concept. Jesus in this parable brings together the two activities of the temple: justification and atonement. Indeed, Jesus is claiming that justification happens through atonement!
This teaching about justification isn’t unique to Jesus. We can see the same idea in other parts of the Bible. For example, in Isaiah’s prophecy, the sin-bearing atoning sacrifice of the Servant brings justification to many (Isa 53:11). The Apostle Paul also brings justification and atonement together, claiming that a person is justified because Jesus Christ was presented as an atonement (Rom 3:25-26).
Plumbing the depths
How can this be? How can God declare that a sinner, who is clearly not in line with God’s moral standards, is indeed in line with his standards? Next time we’ll explore this idea in more depth and see how this question is wonderfully resolved.
I think the translation: ‘be merciful to me’ masks the concept contained in the Greek word used here. It is not the usual word ‘have mercy’ but the word for atone or propitiate. So then, the prayer for mercy is a prayer that God may remove his wrath from the tax-collector, a sinner.
True, the concept of sacrifice is not found here, but I think there is a strong case to argue the normal meaning of the word (ilastheti) is found in Luke 18, as acknowledged by a significant number of commentators, including Leon Morris, whose work on the propiation word group has been very important.
All this strengthens your point, Lionel, for the ground for God to be propitiated in the Bible is his mercy, not our acts of rightousness.
Hi Philip – thanks for your comment. Something weird and technical seems to have happened. The second half of my post has disappeared – the bit where I talk about the point you’ve just made, and then go on to make some conclusions! I’ll see if we can get this fixed.
Thanks for your article Lionel.
Would you mind clarifying a question I have?
I think you are right to suggest teh use of the propitiation word in, say 1 John 4, where it is a noun, includes both the turning aside of God’s wrath and, therefore, the covering of sin (expiation).
But in Luke 18, where the verb is used, are you suggesting the idea here includes more than a request God turn his anger aside from the tax-collector, a sinner? Are you suggesting that he is asking for a sacrifice to be made to achieve this?
If so, I wonder if that is to commit a linguistic error. That is, is that to take what seems to be true of the word used as a noun elsewhere to be true of the verbal form used in this prayer, where the context does not take one in the direction of a sacrifice?
It is true that Luke 18 is part of the travel narrative, and, as such, we the reader know that in Jerusalem Jesus will in fact provide the sacrifice that will make what the tax collector asks for possible (God’s wrath to be turned aside). But I wonder if the word itself as used in Luke 18 means more than: God, remove your wrath from me, a sinner?
I’d love to have your thoughts on this. Thanks again for the excellent articles on key terms as they are used in the Bible.
Hi Philip, thanks for your question.
I’m assuming your question about sacrifice comes from my reference to the previous post on atonement, where I said that in the temple context, atonement happens through sacrifice.
I suppose that it’s conceivable that atonement could have happened for tax collectors in Jesus’ day without requiring a specific sacrifice? Not sure about that one.
But actually I think that here, the context does point us to the idea of a sacrifice. Jesus sets his story in the temple – the place where atoning sacrifices were made day after day. It seems to be quite sensible to assume that anybody in the temple context asking for atonement (such as the tax collector in the story) is doing so on the basis of a sacrifice.
As elsewhere in the Bible, the concept of atonement here seems to include both expiation and propitiation. And because of the specific context of the story (i.e. the temple), I see no reason why a sacrifice shouldn’t be the basis of the expiation (and so of the propitiation).
Sounds like the Tax Collector and Cranmer had a few things in common… From the Homily on Salvation:
“So that the true understanding of this doctrine -We be justified freely by faith
without works, or that we be justified by faith in Christ only – is not, that this
our own act, to believe in Christ,or this our faith in Christ, or this our faith in
Christ, which is within us, doth justify us, and deserve our justification unto us
– for that were to count ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue that is
within ourselves – but the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that,although we hear God’s word and believe it; although we have faith, hope,
charity, repentance, dread, and fear of God within us, and do never so many good works thereunto; yet we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues, of faith, hope, charity, and all our other virtues and good deeds, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too weak and insufficient, and imperfect, to deserve remission of our sins, and our
justification.”
Ashley Null nailed this in our Church History lecture this morning. An absolute cracker!
** Sorry about the formatting – dodgy copy and paste from a PDF **
When will you continue this excellent series?
It is a wonderfully clear presentation.
For your info, James, my departing colleague, Lionel, is (sadly for me, but joyfully for the gospel) in transit between Wollongong Australia and Durham, UK, where he is about to start a PhD. He has some preaching engagements en route through Asia as well!
So unless he has organised some posts in advance (and he is just the sort of disciplined guy who might have done so), I reckon you might just have to wait a few weeks until he is set up in the UK. Helping his family settle into a new country probably should take priority.
But, Lord willing, I am sure Lionel will be back with more.