The words of Chaniotis (2012:320) are prescient for our topic when he writes that ‘progress in the understanding of early Christianity is exclusively based on papyri and inscriptions’. The discovery of two altars in the Graeco-Roman city of Metropolis in the early 1990s and their subsequent publication in 2006 has gone largely unrecognised by New Testament scholars. The altars date after Octavian became princeps and declare him to be Καῖσαρ [ε]ἱλαστήριος. This article begins by discussing the location and history of Metropolis before elucidating the archaeological discovery of the two altars and their subsequent epigraphic publication. It then addresses the historical situation in the Roman Empire that brought about the erection of such imperial altars, especially in the province of Asia. Next it discusses Paul’s probable relationship with Metropolis located between Ephesus and Smyrna. The semantic history of the ἱλαστήριον is traced, and the status quaestionis of Paul’s use of ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3:25 is then reviewed briefly. Finally, it discusses whether ἱλαστήριον may be an imperial term and how Paul might have redeployed the imperial ideology of Caesar as reconciler into his discussion of Christ’s redemptive work in Romans.

Metropolis faced east toward the north-western shore of Pegaseum Stagnum, a small lake or marsh from which a stream called the Pyrites flowed south into the ancient Cayster River (Küçük Menderes) above Ephesus.¹ The city was located 30 km north of Ephesus and 40 km south of Smyrna,² almost midway between these two metropoleis of Asia. It was just north of a junction for a road that led from Ephesus to Sardis via Hypaipa (Figure 1).³

The city was founded during the Ionian colonisation of western Asia Minor around 725 BCE. Pottery finds on the acropolis show occupation during the Archaic Period, although there appears to be a hiatus in the settlement history during the Classical Age. After Alexander’s arrival in 334 BCE and the founding of cities in western Anatolia during the Hellenistic period, Metropolis shows development in its city plan (Figure 2). It later fell under the jurisdiction of the Attalid Empire based in Pergamum and then under the Romans when Attalus III bequeathed his kingdom to Rome in 133 BCE. When the province of Asia was formed in 129 BCE, Metropolis was given free city status and the right to mint its own coins. Located in the conventus of Ephesus, it joined other Ionian cities in the rebellion of Mithridates against the Romans in 86 BCE. With the coming of the Pax Romana under Augustus, the city flourished. The theatre and bouleuterion were restored, a gymnasium was presided over by a woman named Augusta, and Roman culture became entrenched in the city. Meriç (2004:66–67) suggests that the city must have been affected by the great earthquake that struck western Asia Minor in 17 CE and then, unable to recover, entered a period of stagnation until the reign of Trajan.⁴ However, Metropolis is not named among the 12 Lydian cities destroyed by the earthquake, and to those cities affected, principally nearby Sardis, Tiberius granted not only tax relief but also gave 10 million sesterces in aid for rebuilding.⁵ An earthquake did strike Ephesus in 23 CE; so perhaps this was the earthquake that damaged Metropolis, but no aid was given this time. The archaeological record shows that under Trajan the minting of coins resumed in Metropolis, and damaged buildings were repaired as well as new construction commenced.

Because of Metropolis’s location on the main road between Ephesus and Smyrna, it is likely that the gospel arrived at an early date. Schnabel (2004:2.1203) suggests that Metropolis lay along the route of Paul’s third journey as he passed through the τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη (‘interior regions’; NLT, ESV, cf. NIV) to come to Ephesus (Ac 19:1).⁶ However, the route following the course of the Cayster River did not pass through Metropolis but diverted south of the marshy Pegaseum Stagnum, as the Barrington atlas shows (Talbert 2000:61). So Schnabel’s suggestion is unlikely, especially given that Paul’s route from Apamea was more likely through the shorter and easier Meander valley.⁷ Paul during his 3 years stay in Ephesus perhaps travelled to neighbouring cities such as Metropolis, thus prompting Luke’s claim that the word had spread widely in Asia (Ac 19:10, 20). As Ramsay (1994) stated about Revelation’s seven churches:

Metropolis was among those cities on an important road, so it is possible that Paul had a relationship with the believers there. After the riot forced Paul to leave Ephesus, the land route would have taken him through Metropolis again on his way up the coast to Troas (Ac 20:1–2; 2 Cor. 2:12).

In 1990, archaeologists from Doküz Eylül (9 September) University in Izmir began to excavate the theatre of Metropolis. In front of the orchestra, three round altars were found in situ (Figure 3). The excavators describe them: ‘The altars are ornamented with bull’s head, ram and deer heads among which grapes, pomegranate, pine cones and embellished garlands are placed’ (Aybek, Meriç & Öz 2009:75).⁸ The one on the left (facing the cavea) was dedicated to Germanicus and dates between 4 CE and 19 CE, while the other two altars were dedicated to Augustus.⁹ The altar at the right will be discussed later. The inscription on the middle altar reads: Καίσαρος εἱλαστηρίου (Figure 4).¹⁰ During excavations at the nearby bouleuterion in 1992, a matching altar was found with the inscription Καίσαρος ἱλαστηρίου (Figure 5). The altars measure 1.25 m high with a top diameter of 65 cm. These two Augustan altars are of special interest because Paul’s use of the noun form ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3:25 is a hapax legomenon in the Pauline corpus with Hebrews 9:5 being the only other usage in the New Testament. The inscriptions also provide the earliest attestation for the adjective ἱλαστήριος outside Judaeo-Christian literature. My own interest in these inscriptions began in the summer of 2014 after reading about them in Cooley and Salway’s (2012:199) summary of inscriptions found in Asia Minor during the 1990s.¹¹

After Augustus introduced the Pax Romana, a building revival began in Metropolis. Meriç (2004:66) writes: ‘The theatre and bouleuterion were renovated, new altars were erected and the foundation of both public buildings was covered with marble plates’. Nevertheless, his closest estimate for the erection of these altars dates from 27 BCE to 14 CE, the reign of Augustus (Meriç 2004:91, 116). Yet their history seems to precede this dating. Antony and Cleopatra spent the winter of 33–32 BCE in Ephesus ensuring that the province of Asia was firmly in their camp (Plutarch Ant. 56.1). However, the tide turned in 31 BCE, and Octavian defeated Antony decisively at Actium. In 30 BCE, Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide in Egypt after the fall of Alexandria. After Actium, Octavian made brief visits to Asia including Samos and Ephesus during which these communities that had formerly supported Antony now made peace with their new ruler (Cassius Dio 51.4.1).¹² Antony’s excessive levies had caused great economic distress in Asia. So Octavian did not punish the cities with any further penalties, apart from Kos perhaps (Magie 1950:1.441). Thus, Punt (2012:3) writes, ‘After the civil war, Augustus was often upheld as herald of peace to the Empire and the world at large’.

On 13–15 August 29 BCE, Octavian was awarded a triple triumph by the Senate, which he proudly described in the Res Gestae: ‘three times I have driven triumphal chariots’ (Cooley 2009:121). Such honours were not only bestowed in Rome but also in the provinces. As Philo writes (Legat. 149–150; Yonge transl.):

The physical setting where the emperor was honoured was generally in the city centre and integrated into its religious, political and economic life (Zanker 1990:298). Goldsworthy (2014:192) observes that ‘communities were eager to parade their loyalty by worshipping the Roman leader himself’. In 29 BCE, the koinon of Asia received permission to build an imperial cult temple in Pergamum while in Ephesus a sanctuary dedicated to Dea Roma and Divus Julius was erected for its Roman residents (Dio Cassius Hist. Rom. 51.20.6–7). Denarii issued in Ephesus in 29–27 BCE depict Octavian on the reverse standing in a decorated quadriga, while on the obverse Victory stands on a ship’s prow holding a palm and wreath. A golden aureus, likely minted in Ephesus in 28 BCE during Octavian’s sixth consulship, shows him on the reverse seated in a magistrate’s chair holding a scroll in his right hand, and on the ground to his left is a document box. Its inscription reads: LEGES ET IURA P(ublicae) R(ei) Restuit; ‘he restored laws and rights to (or of) the res publica’ (Galinsky 2012:62–63). Octavian’s victory is thus portrayed as the restoration of the republic to the people of Rome, which implies reconciliation with his supporters as well as his former enemies.¹³ The erection of these altars in Metropolis then was part of an empire-wide expression whereby hundreds of cities around the Mediterranean erected altars and temples to Augustus at this time (Zanker 1990:304). As Weiß (2014b:3) notes, ‘These altars shed some new light, perhaps not necessarily on the intentions of the victor, but certainly on the perception of the victor’.

Earlier, it was mentioned that a third altar was found in the theatre, whose style and lettering resembled the two ἱλαστήριος inscriptions. Its formulaic titulature for Augustus reads: αὐτοκράτωρι Καίσαρι θεῶι σεβαστῶι θεοῦ υἱῶι. Σεβαστός is the Greek translation of the Latin ‘Augustus’, a title bestowed on Octavian in January 27 BCE. Writing about an Ephesian inscription from this period, Jones (1999:90) states that the ‘the absence of “Augustus” from his titulature provides a terminus ante quem of 27’.¹⁴ For this reason, the third altar can be dated after 27 BCE. Because the two ἱλαστήριος altars do not bear the later Augustan language, Weiß (2014b:3–4) suggests that they should be dated to the brief period after the autumn of 31 BCE but before January 27 BCE. Using the chronology outlined above, dating for the erection of the altars could possibly be narrowed further between August 29 and January 27 BCE.¹⁵

After Octavian was victorious over Antony at Actium, the politics of reconciliation began in the empire, especially in the Greek east. In Res Gestae 3, Augustus portrays himself as a victor merciful to citizens requesting a pardon.¹⁶ Cooley (2009:117) observes: ‘His actions after Actium arguably demonstrated a degree of clemency: even a hostile account admits that he did spare some Antonians (Dio Cass. 51.2.4)’. Engelmann and Dreyer (2006:174) note similarly: ‘Nach seinen militärischen Erfolgen hatte Augustus versucht, die Gräben zu überwinden, welche ein langer Bürgerkrieg aufgeworfen hatte, und seinen Gegnern die Hand zur Versöhnung gereicht’.¹⁷ Such acts are consistent with the dictates of imperial ideology, as ‘the sovereign’s occasional exercise of mercy … redounds to the personal glory of the sovereign, demonstrating his power and beneficence’ (Elliott 2008b:87).

A further aspect of the same policy was to promote the cult of abstractions linked with the emperor. In parading the blessings conferred by his rule, abstractions played an important role in keeping the image of Augustus before the attention of the public. First and foremost were his personal virtues–valour, clemency, justice and piety–inscribed on the golden shield he received in 27 BCE (Res Gestae 34.2).¹⁸ As Fishwick (2014:50) notes, ‘Other abstractions, more properly blessings rather than virtues, began their career in the period immediately following: Victoria Augusta, Pax Augusta, Concordia Augusta, perhaps also Augustan Salus, Fortuna and Felicitas’. Augustus was careful to allow only certain practices in the public cult of the state, one of which was the erection of altars that celebrated the divine virtues of his actions (Scheid 2009:292). Horace (Ep. 2.1.15–16) writes later about 12 BCE: ‘We bestow the fullest honours on you who are present, and we set up altars by which to swear by your numen’. The altars erected at Metropolis thus line up with imperial practice. However, they were not erected because of an official order but evidence a local perception of a virtue of Octavian.

The use of the genitive case in Καίσαρος εἱλαστηρίου is a well-known elliptical construction in epigraphical texts wherein the genitive requires a subject, in this case ὁ βομός, ‘the altar’ (Weiß 2014b:3). The likely meaning of ίλαστήριος on the two Metropolis altars, according to Weiß (2014a:302), is versöhnend [conciliatory], and therefore they are consecrated to Octavian as the versöhnenden Caesar [reconciliatory Caesar]. Dreyer and Engelmann (2006:174) offer the translation: ‘(Altar des) Caesar, der die Versöhnung bringt’, hence ‘(Altar of) Caesar, the bringer of reconciliation’, or in their (2006:173) caption of its photograph: Die versöhnende Kraft Caesars [The reconciling power of Caesar]. An alternative English translation might be ‘the reconciling Caesar’ or ‘Caesar who brings reconciliation’.

ἱλαστήριον appears on six inscriptions from the Roman imperial period on two islands once part of Asia. Four come from Kos and the other two from Lindos on Rhodes. Bailey (2000:156–157) observes that the pagan understanding in the 1st century CE of ἱλαστήριον was ‘propitiatory gift’ or ‘votive offering’ whose lexical equivalent was ἀνάθεμα.¹⁹ The six inscriptions are discussed in detail by Weiß (2014a:296–298), who demonstrates that they all arise from a Graeco-pagan context rather than from a Jewish biblical and theological worldview. Rejecting an interpretation of Schreiber (2006), Weiß (2014a:301) concludes that: ‘Schreibers Interpretation ist somit philologisch nicht moglich und sein Versuch, die Rede vom “Suhnetod Christi” mittels einer Neuinterpretation von hilasterion in Rom 3,25 als “Weihegeschenk” zu uberwinden, nicht gegluckt’.²⁰ Thus, these few contemporaneous polytheist inscriptions are not helpful in understanding either the inscriptions on Metropolis’s altars or Paul’s use of the word in Romans 3:25.

ἱλαστήριον is used 28 times in the Septuagint, with the majority found in the Pentateuch–Exodus (13x), Leviticus (7x) and Numbers (1x). These all refer to the atonement cover on the ark of covenant upon which the sacrificial blood of bulls and goats was placed (Lev 16:14–15). The five references in Ezekiel refer to the altar in the eschatological temple (Ezek 43:14, 17, 20). Only in 4 Maccabees 17:22 does ἱλαστήριον refer not to a sacrificial object but to the atoning sacrifice itself. In their entry for ἱλαστήριον, Lust, Eynikel and Hauspie (2004:611–612) provide two main glosses: ‘lid of the ark of the covenant’ and ‘propitiation’. Jewett (2007) helpfully summarises:

Aitken (2014:205) has focused scholarly attention on the significance of inscriptions for obscure words in the Septuagint: ‘Certainly, the omission of inscriptions from scholarly discussions has been common, and their full value will only be appreciated once they have been sufficiently included’. Hopefully, the Metropolis inscriptions will find their way into future discussions of the vocabulary of the LXX.

The twofold perspective just summarised by Jewett is reflected in two major lexica of New Testament Greek. Bauer et al. (2000:93) state that ἱλαστήριον means either ‘expiation’ or ‘place of expiation’ citing Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5. Friberg, Friberg and Miller (2005:ad loc) state that ἱλαστήριος focuses:

As mentioned earlier, Paul’s only use of ἱλαστήριον was to the Roman church in 3:25: ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων.

The literature on Paul’s use of ἱλαστήριον in this verse is considerable; so the state of discussion can only be briefly summarised. For a background, Bailey (2000) appeals to Exodus 15 because of Paul’s reference to the Law and the Prophets in 3:21, stating:

Thus, the concept of Jesus as ‘mercy seat’ is more compatible with the lexicography of the LXX and against Greek inscriptional usage. Paul’s theological application of this word would not be unprecedented, because Philo (Mos 2.96) considered the mercy seat as σύμβολον της ϊλεω του θεοΰ δυνάμεως.²² Bailey (2000:157) writes, ‘Perhaps this shows that Philo traced the term ἱλαστήριον etymologically not to ἱλάσκεσθαι (“to propitiate or expiate”) but to ἱλεως, “gracious” or “merciful”’. This understanding therefore contradicts the translation in popular English versions: ‘sacrifice of atonement’ (NIV, NRSV; cf. NLT) or ‘propitiation’ (ESV, NKJV). Only the NET translates ἱλαστήριον as ‘mercy seat’.²³

Dunn (1988) offers a mediating perspective on ἱλαστήριον:

If indeed Paul is using ἱλαστήριον to summarise such a complex of theological concepts, its use in Romans 3:25 could include the idea of reconciliation.²⁵ Weiß (2014b:4) agrees that ‘“reconciliation” as the result of propitiation is part of the complex meaning, which cannot be really expressed in one word’. Reconciliation in Romans is a key subtext and has both vertical and horizontal dimensions. In the opening three chapters, Paul presents his case that both Jews and Gentiles are sinful and have fallen short of God’s righteous standard, concluding: ‘We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one”’ (Rom 3:9–10 NIV). Thus, humanity must be reconciled to God, and faith in and of Jesus Christ is the only thing that can restore that vertical relationship. The horizontal division between Jew and Gentiles is first introduced in the rhetoric of 1:16. Commentators on Romans agree that a tension existed in the Roman church between the Gentile and Jewish believers. The expulsion of some Jews by Claudius in 49 CE including Priscilla and Aquila (Ac 18:2) left Gentile believers now in leadership roles. When these Jewish believers returned to Rome, they found a changed situation. As deSilva (2004) writes:

In addition, Paul’s exhortations about Israel in chapters 9–11 serve as reconciling language not only for the world (Rom 11:15) but also for the Christian community in Rome.

Whether Paul was consciously attempting to counter imperial ideology in Romans and in his other letters cannot be debated here. The minimalists²⁷ and maximalists²⁸ on both sides continue to argue their respective cases. As with most hermeneutical and methodological debates, there is a tendency to overstate or understate the evidence with a subsequent inability to find valid points on the other side. Indeed, each text needs to be approached in its own right to determine the legitimacy of a possible imperial reading. Does Paul use ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3:25 as an anti-imperial reading? Is this another ‘hidden transcript’ in Romans that was intelligible to readers whom Lim (2015:5–10) thinks were first addressed in 1:18–32 and are again addressed in 13:1–7?

In his ‘Response’ that concludes Paul and the Roman imperial order, the Roman historian Price (2004:181) observes: ‘The world of Augustan court ideology is very remote from the world of the eastern cities of the Roman Empire’. Nevertheless, he states that the gap can be lessened by finding comparable ideology articulated by an eastern province like Asia. His example is the calendar degree dating from the winter of 9/8 BCE and issued by the koinon of Asia. In 29 BCE, the consul of Asia L. Volcacius Tullus offered a crown for whoever suggested the best way to honour the divine emperor. This prize was not awarded until 9 BCE when the proconsul Paullus Fabius Maximus suggested that the New Year based on the solar Julian calendar should begin on Augustus’s birthday. The provincial calendar was thus reconfigured to 23 September, the birthday of Augustus. Fabius Maximus ordered that the edict then be erected on a stele in the temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamum. Cooley (2012) notes that:

The discovery of the monument in at least four Asian cities that did not function as assize centres shows that the decree’s distribution was even greater than what Cooley suggests.

The Priene version, first published in 1899, was popularised by Deissmann (1910:370–371, Figures 59–60; cf. 349, 351) in his Light from the ancient east.²⁹ It became known as the ‘good news’ (cf. Mark 1:1) of Caesar because of its use of the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (Wilson 2014:264). It also speaks of divine providence ordering everyone’s lives and ‘producing Augustus for the benefit of the human race; eternal and immortal nature had devised this as the greatest possible benefaction’ (Cooley 2012:165–166). Its importance was not so much religious as national and social, according to Sherk (1969):

Other fragments of the inscription were subsequently found in the Asian cities of Maonia, Apamea, Eumenea and Dorylaeum.³¹ Two stones containing much of the calendar inscription were discovered in the excavations at Metropolis around the same time as the altars (Figure 6). That Metropolis was intent on promulgating imperial ideology is reinforced by this discovery. In the same article that presented the altars to Caesar, Dreyer and Englemann (2006:175–182) also published the newly discovered version of the calendar decree from Metropolis and compared it to the Priene version. For Christians in cities like Metropolis and Ephesus, Stanton (2004:32) suggests that the inscription would contain ‘an unmistakable whiff of eschatology and of soteriology here’. And for them εὐαγγέλιον was more than what the English word ‘gospel’ connotes as ‘good news’. According to Elliott (2008b:98), ‘Such an understanding evacuates it of its political resonance. It was used … to announce or celebrate the emperor’s accession to power’. The Metropolis altars functioned similarly, for as Cooley and Salway (2012:199) suggest, ‘whoever set up the altars there was actively engaging with imperial ideology, and not just copying standard ways of referring to Augustus’. The altars and the inscription served as a two-pronged declaration of this ideology.

Is there a vocabulary of anti-imperial rhetoric in Romans? Speaking in the affirmative and specifically about Paul’s use of δικαιοσύνη in Romans 3, Wright (2000:172) states: ‘If justice is wanted, it will be found not in the euaggelion that announces Caesar as Lord but in the euaggelion of Jesus’. Speaking in the negative, Kim (2008) responds:

The former seems the preferable option here with ἱλαστήριον entering the vocabulary of anti-imperial rhetoric that includes other terms such as σωτήρ/σωτηρία, ἐπιφάνεια, κύριος, and εἰρήνη.³²

If ἱλαστήριον is anti-imperial rhetoric, the question might well be asked: Would recipients of Paul’s letter in the Roman church recognize it? From Corinth Paul was alerting the Romans about his upcoming visit to Rome to announce the gospel message in the empire’s capital (cf. Wright 2000:171). Rome was over 1600 km away from Metropolis. If Paul had seen the altars dedicated to Augustus while visiting Metropolis, he would have recognised ἱλαστήριον as a word familiar from the LXX and Second Temple worship but now recast within imperial ideology. Because inter-community koinonia likely occurred between the Christians in Ephesus and Metropolis, Priscilla and Aquila might have visited the city as well (cf. Rom 16:3). Others in the Roman church who had travelled in the Greek east might also have seen the ἱλαστήριος epithet in Metropolis or another Asian city.

Cooley (2012:159) notes that official information was disseminated in epigraphic form in three ways: (1) specific publication for a specific audience, (2) publication of multiple copies for specific audiences and (3) universal publication. The Res Gestae exemplifies the third way with wide dissemination after its publication in Rome following Augustus’s death in 14 CE. Yet throughout the empire only a few copies have been found and all in Asia Minor.³³ The calendar degree, discussed earlier, falls into category 2. The first copy was discovered in the late 19th century, while over a century of excavation has passed before the most recent copy came to light in Metropolis.

Are the two Metropolis altars with ἱλαστήριος an example of the first category whose audience was meant to be specific and local? Such a conclusion is doubtful. It was more likely extra-provincial because other provinces in the Greek east like Asia and Achaia had also benefited from the largesse of Augustus after his defeat of Antony. So in other eastern cities similar altars to Augustus might have been erected, possibly even in Rome. Their sole discovery in Metropolis could just be an accident of epigraphical history. Therefore, it can be hoped that additional examples of imperial inscriptions with ἱλαστήριος will be discovered in excavations at other ancient sites.

Although Keegan (2014) is writing about graffiti, his point has similar application considering the purpose of the Metropolis altars:

The altars of Metropolis functioned similarly as social and psychological expressions of the belief among the elite in Metropolis that Octavian was the divine gift of God sent to re-establish order and peace in the world through his reconciling power. Thus, it was inevitable that the imperial ideology that Octavian/Augustus was the reconciler of the world would collide with Paul’s theology that Jesus Christ was in fact that reconciler. For Paul the reconciliation introduced by Jesus was not just temporal for an empire but eternal for the world (Rom 11:15).