By Angus Harley

Everybody knows the parable of the tax-collector and the pharisee and its marvelous story of the contrast between the contrite and broken ‘nasty’ sinner of the tax-collector and the ‘righteous’ and ‘holy’ pharisee. We see therein the difference between man’s pride in his own religious and spiritual righteousness contrasted to the simple cry of a broken man in his confession of sin. It was the broken tax-collector who had confessed his sin that returned home justified before God, and not the ‘holy’, self-righteous, pharisee (Luke 18:9-14).

There is not normally any direct connection made between, for example, Paul’s teaching in Romans 3:21-27 and Luke 18:9-14. Sure, they talk about the same general theme, and in that sense reinforce one another as to justification, but that’s about it. They are not considered as tied into one another. 

However, there is a good chance that they are more similar than we have before thought. The central verse is Luke 18:13. It can be translated as follows, “‘And the tax-gatherer, having stood afar off, would not even the eyes lift up to the heaven, but was smiting on his breast, saying, God be propitious to me — the sinner!” (YLT). The key to this new reading is the word hilaskomai, which is almost invariably translated as ‘mercy’ or ‘merciful’. In one sense, this is an understandable translation, given that the tax-collector is calling upon God for a form of mercy. However, it is not the only translation. The word hiloskomai is used in one other place, Hebrews 2:17, and there it refers to Jesus who became a high priest to make “propitiation” (hiloskomai) for the sins of the people. This is in the wider context of Hebrews that refers to Jesus the Great High Priest’s service in the heavenly tabernacle of God (Heb.8:2; 9:11, 21). Of course, the tabernacle and temple serve to represent the same idea of God’s holy dwelling place in heaven (see Rev.15:5; 11:19; 14:15, etc.). We must recall that the Pharisee and the tax-collector “went up to the temple to pray”. The pharisee, it is implied, came closer to God within the temple, for it is said of the tax-collector, “But the tax collector, standing some distance away”. The tax-collector, although entered in, stood far away from God in the temple, not considering himself worthy to be closer to him as the pharisee did. The pharisee literally believed that it was his righteousness that was the ‘ticket’ to draw close to God. The tax-collector, by contrast, intuitively, because of his sin, knew that his sin kept him ‘far away’ from God, and that he needed God to be propitious toward him to be even as close as he was. The one was close and did not need anything from God, because he was fully righteous; the other was far away and needed God’s propitiating grace, for he was fully a sinner.

Moreover, hilasmos, which is a cognate of hiloskomai, means ‘propitiation’ (1 John 2:2; 4:10). In fact, another cognate, hilasterion is used in Romans 3:25 to refer to a “propitiation”. Some question this latter translation due to hilasterion‘s use in Hebrews 9:5 as the “mercy seat”; this same idea is read into Romans 3:25: Jesus was set forth by God as a ‘mercy seat’, some say. However, one would be hard pressed to completely dissociate the concept of the ‘mercy seat’ from being a place of propitiation through blood. It is possible that Romans 3:25 is combining both elements- the place of the mercy seat, and its propitiatory role via sacrificial blood. Also, in the LXX, hiloskomai is used to translate the Hebrew word kipper, the term indicating atonement.

It is one thing to tie in God’s propitiatory sacrifice with the mercy-seat- the place of propitiation- but surely it is another to identify God’s act of hiloskomai as mere mercy (mercy without a strict connection to propitiation). For, there are other terms in the Gospels that are more suitable to convey the idea of mercy in itself, for example, eleemon (merciful), elee (to have mercy), eleos (mercy), oiktirmos (mercies, compassion), oiktiro (to have compassion or pity).

Therefore, if mercy is present, is it not more contextual to consider it as an example of divine temple-propitiatory mercy?  Certainly, the joining together of the ideas of God’s mercy-seat and his propitiating grace are not out of place in the temple of God. Even so, this tax-collector is looking for God’s propitiating mercy in the present, without reference to the Levitical Day of Atonement and its priest. Nor is there any mention of any other sacrifice being made to propitiate- the Passover lamb or the various priestly sacrifices. Yet, there is still a distinct possibility that Jesus is implying in all of this that the tax-collector grasped that God’s justifying grace must come to sinners in a manner that was not tied to the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices, and that some other form of priestly sacrifice was called for. Most certainly, David’s faith understood that the OT sacrificial system was superseded by a prior and superior heavenly and spiritual form of spiritual sacrifice and forgiveness, to which the Old Covenant sacrificial system itself pointed (see Psalm 51).1

Yet, even if this is stretching what the tax-collector understood, it is certainly not out of place with Jesus’ own theology related in the Gospels, so that he could be implying a new, heavenly, priesthood that brings daily, not annually, forgiveness of sins. After all, the Gospels are transition narratives that routinely use the OT, Old Covenant religious order, to convey superior spiritual and New Covenant truths (e.g., Mark 7:19, 33; 8:23; Luke 2:41-49).2

We learn from the above the difference between God’s justification and man’s. You see, the temple was the place, in that day, to be considered righteous in God’s sight. However, that justification was based on one thing: that the worshiper draw only so close to God as a sinner, and then confess his sin unto him, calling upon him for propitiating mercy. The pharisee used and abused the temple to magnify the righteousness of his own religious and spiritual credentials, none of which were built on him as a sinner. One left the house of God to return to his own home a justified man; the other returned to his home and was not justified. Jesus’ lesson? God’s justification started in the temple with sinners, and then served to cover the ‘broken one’ throughout his life.

In this I hope the reader can now see the closer tie that Luke 18:9-14 has with Romans 3:21-27. There are the themes of God’s propitious mercy and grace, the sinfulness of man, the wisdom and knowledge of the Christ, and God’s justification of the ungodly. All set in contrast to the man who sets about establishing his own righteousness.

1. Angus Harley, “Psalm 51: A Model for Understanding OT Law”, All Things New Covenant, February 12, 2023, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2023/02/12/psalm-51-a-model-for-understanding-the-ot-law/.

2 J. Angus Harley, Jesus: Son of Liberty (J. Angus Harley: 2020). Available on Amazon.