^{page 33 note 1} There are numerous references to the ark of the covenant as being used outside the holy of holies, as Joshua iii. 3, iv. 5 etc., and the well known incident in I Samuel iv. when the Philistines captured it. That it was the practice to carry the ark with the armies in time of war seems clear, cf. Uriah's remark to David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in booths (II Sam. xi. II). Many recent writers are of opinion that the ark was in regular use in connexion with cultic practices such as an enthronement festival or sacred marriage. The last mention of the ark in II Chron. xxxv. 3, an instruction to put it into the Temple, shows that it was still used in some manner not now known. But as our primary concern is with the later usage, that with which the men of the New Testament were concerned, we may set aside these practices, all the more so since the is not mentioned in any such passage, and it may well have been the case that it was not carried round with the ark. That it was more than merely a lid to the ark seems implied by the reference to the holy of holies in I Chron. xxviii. 11 as the house of the and the designation of Yahweh as thou that sittest upon the cherubim (Ps. lxxx. I). The clearly had existence in its own right, and was very closely associated with the presence of Yahweh.

^{page 33 note 2} I have given my reasons for thinking that the words of the group are to be understood in terms of the averting of the divine wrath, rather than of expiation simply, as is frequently maintained, in an article in the Expository Times, LXII, pp. 227ff. Propitiation may not be a very good word to describe this, but we do not seem to have a better.

^{page 33 note 3} Grenfell and Hunt, The Fayum Towns and Their Papyri, p. 313 (No. 337).

^{page 33 note 4} Yet Moore says, G. F. the interpretation atoning sacrifice (after the analogy of , , etc.) is not entirely certain, though highly probable, Enc. Bib. IV, col. 4229. Similarly Charles Hodge (in loc.) gives propitiatory sacrifice as his first alternative (the other being propitiation), and Denney uses the same expression in his paraphrase of the passage in Studies in Theology, pp. 115 f.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 1} So Sanday and Headlam (in loc.); Denney, E.G.T., II, p. 611; Vincent Taylor, Expository Times, 1, p. 296; et al.

^{page 34 note 2} See Sanday and Headlam in loc.

^{page 34 note 3} A Critical Exposition of Romans Third, p. 284.

^{page 34 note 4} Romans, p. 98.

^{page 34 note 5} Enc. Bib. III, col. 3033.

^{page 35 note 1} J.T.S. XLVI, p. 3.

^{page 35 note 2} T.W.N.T. III, p. 320.

^{page 35 note 3} James Morison, op. cit. pp. 290I, thinks that combines the ideas of propitiation and cover, but translators into Greek, if using only one term, must choose between these ideas. Thus retains propitiation and loses cover, while (Josephus) retains cover and loses propitiation. This passage manages to express both ideas.

^{page 36 note 1} Op. cit. p. 4. Liddon cites Levy (Chald. Dict.) as assigning to the meaning a p ace of expiation, Explanatory Analysis of St Paul's Epistle to the Romans, p. 75.

^{page 37 note 1} Cited in Enc. Bib. III, col. 3031.

^{page 37 note 2} Op. cit. p. 3. This is supported by Schleusner's understanding of as Atrium, crepido altaris, sive: spatium, in quo sacerdotes circa altare obambulare poterant, Novus Thesaurusin LXXinterpretes Veteris Testamenti, III, p. 109.

^{page 37 note 3} T.W.N.T. III, p. 322.

^{page 38 note 1} Op. cit p. 7.

^{page 38 note 2} Cf. Davies, W. D., The tones of confession may be audible in Rom. iii. 10 f. but in the rather philosophical explanation of the origin and growth of human sinfulness, Rabbinic in thought but Stoic in expression, which we find in Rom. i. 18f.; in the argumentative indictment of Rom. ii. 1 f. and in the tortuous thought of Rom. iii. 1 f. it is impossible to overhear them, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 242.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 3} W. D. Davies thinks it doubtfulwhether the is to be emphasized (ibid.).

^{page 38 note 4} See the evidence collected in Gifford, Addit. Note on Rom. iii. 25 (p. 97).

^{page 38 note 5} Op. cit. p. 87.

^{page 39 note 1} Romans, p. 157.

^{page 39 note 2} I have not specially noted the view of C. Anderson Scott who holds that we may translate or paraphrase Rom. iii. 25 thus: Whom God set forth a victim unto blood as one able to effect reconciliation through faith (Abingdon Commentary in loc.; he has similar statements elsewhere). His view involves many improbabilities as Vincent Taylor has shown, Expository Times, L, pp. 295 ff.

^{page 39 note 3} Cf. Bchsel, Ausserhalb des biblischen and jdischen Griechisch ist das substantivierte Neutrum nachgewiesen in der Bedeutung Weingeschenk, T. W.N. T. III, p. 321.

^{page 39 note 4} Vincent Taylor interprets the word broadly, and while regarding it as adjectival, gives means of expiation or atonement as the best translation of the term, rejecting a reference to the Day of Atonement, op. cit. p. 296 (see also Forgiveness and Reconciliation, p. 46). H. Moule took the native meaning to be price of expiation (Romans (Expositors' Bible), p. 93n.). Barth, with a glance at the etymology of , renders covering of propitiation (in loc.).

^{page 40 note 1} James Denney made this point, saying of the reference of to the mercy-seat, there are grammatical reasons against this rendering. Paul must have written, to be clear, ;, or some equivalent phrase. Cf. I Cor. v. 8 (Christ our passover). A mercy-seat is not such a self-evident, self-interpreting idea, that the Apostle could lay it at the heart of his gospel without a word of explanation, E.G.T. is, p. 611.

^{page 40 note 2} See, for example, De Vit. Mos. II, 95, 97; De Profug. 19. In De Cherub. 8 there is no such explanation, but here we have the cherubim associated with the to make the allusion clear.

^{page 40 note 3} From Jesus to Paul, p. 140, n. 13.

^{page 41 note 1} Gels justly observes that if this type had been familiar to St Paul, it would have been found elsewhere in his letters; and if it were not so, the term would have been unintelligible to his readers, Godet, in loc.

^{page 41 note 2} Yom. v, 3, 4.

^{page 41 note 3} Strack-Billerbeck, III, pp. 179 ff.

^{page 42 note 1} Bible Studies, p. 132.

^{page 42 note 2} The cognate noun habitually signifies purpose in the New Testament, but not too much can be made of this, for it is also used of the shewbread.

^{page 42 note 3} Moulton and Milligan favour the idea offered, provided, citing an inscription offering money for the ransom etc. and a prescription for fever, Apply a warm bottle to the feet. This would give excellent sense in the Romans passage, but it has received strangely little attention.