Introduction

That translation involves interpretation is a truism that perhaps needs some better explanation when it comes to the Bible. Some will ardently affirm that they “take the Bible just as it reads” without taking note of the meaning in the original languages. Others make great assertions regarding the “right” translation to be used. Questions then arise as to how best to translate certain verses, especially because every translation has some degree of bias. Presuppositions in the minds of the translators also affect the way in which Bible passages are interpreted, particularly if it deals with a “major doctrine.”

This is particularly true in the translation of Romans, and especially Romans 3:25 and 26. Since it is almost exclusively believed to be a “key text” for the Penal Substitutionary theory of the Atonement, nearly every major translation gives this kind of rendering. However when the actual Greek is examined, such a presupposition is far from obvious.

An absolutely literal translation does not make much sense in English due to differences in grammar and sentence construction. However here is what the Greek literally says in Romans 3:25, 26:

Whom set forward the God place of expiation through the trust in the same blood in demonstration of the rightness of him through the passing over of the having become before sins. In the restraint of the God to the demonstration of the rightness of him in the now season in the to be him right and making right the from trust in Jesus. (Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament 27th Edition Interlinear)

The key word is hilasterion (translated above as “place of expiation”) and to a lesser extent, the meaning of haima, translated “blood.”

Different translations

Let’s look at some of the translations to get a sense of how the meaning of this verse is understood. Firstly, the New English Bible:

For God designed him to be the means of expiating sin by his sacrificial death, effective through faith. God meant by this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had overlooked the sins of the past—to demonstrate his justice now in the present, showing that he is himself just and justifies any man who puts his faith in Jesus. (NEB)

Here we see hilasterion translated as “means of expiating sin” and haima translated as “sacrificial death.” Clearly the word for blood has been “reinterpreted” following the idea of what the death of Jesus means. “Means of expiating sin” is not very helpful to most modern readers since “expiating” is a foreign term based on a Latin word. The Revised Standard version has this same idea, though it does not try to reinterpret the meaning of the word “blood”:

[Christ Jesus], whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus. (RSV)

The King James does not use “expiation,” but another Latin word, “propitiation,” that is transferred over from the Latin Vulgate translation of Romans:

[Christ Jesus], Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;  To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (KJV)

Again, “propitiation” is hardly more familiar to most readers than “expiation,” and needs much explanation. It also suggests that God needed to be “propitiated” (meaning “appeased,” changed from being hostile to favorable etc).

The American Standard Version of 1901 keeps to the King James language:

[Christ Jesus], whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. (ASV)

The Catholic Douay-Rheims has similar language:

[Christ Jesus], Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins, Through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time; that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. (Douay-Rheims)

Suprisingly even “modern” English translations have also retained “propitiation” as a translation for hilasterion. Note Moffat (1926):

[Christ Jesus], whom God put forward as the means of propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to demonstrate the justice of God in view of the fact that sins precious committed during the time of God’s forbearance had been passed over; it was to demonstrate his justice at the present epoch, showing that God is just himself and that he justifies man on the score of faith in Jesus. (Moffatt)

Also even J.B. Phillips (1958):

God has appointed him as the means of propitiation, a propitiation accomplished by the shedding of his blood, to be received and made effective in ourselves by faith. God has done this to demonstrate his righteousness both by the wiping out of the sins of the past (the time when he withheld his hand), and by showing in the present time that he is a just God and that he justifies every man who has faith in Jesus. (Phillips)

The English Standard Version of 2001 (a revision of the RSV) goes back to “propitiation,” perhaps because it is such a “formula” that is required. [In fact some users of the Bible have commented that will only use a version that has the word “propitiation” in Romans 3:25].

[Christ Jesus], whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (ESV)

Other older versions use an Anglicized version of Luther’s translation of hilasterion as “mercy-seat,” though for many again this is not something that is readily understandable. This is Darby’s translation of 1890:

[Christ Jesus], whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of his righteousness, in respect of the passing by the sins that had taken place before, through the forbearance of God; for the shewing forth of his righteousness in the present time, so that he should be just, and justify him that is of the faith of Jesus. (Darby)

Even one of the more modern versions stays with “mercy seat.” This is the New English Translation (2005):

God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness. (NET)

Other modern versions do attempt to give a rendering that may be more accessible than terms such as expiation, propitiation, and mercy-seat. For example the New International Version (1978):

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (NIV)

This is clearly echoing ideas of the Penal Substitutionary theory of the Atonement previously mentioned. Others follow similar thinking, such as the Contemporary English Version (1995):

God sent Christ to be our sacrifice. Christ offered his life’s blood, so that by faith in him we could come to God. And God did this to show that in the past he was right to be patient and forgive sinners. This also shows that God is right when he accepts people who have faith in Jesus. (CEV)

Here hilasterion is simply equated to sacrifice, and one wonders why Paul would not have used the Greek word for this… The New Century Version (2005) takes this a step further and makes the ruling atonement theory explicit, presuming that this is what Paul actually meant:

God sent him to die in our place to take away our sins. We receive forgiveness through faith in the blood of Jesus’ death. This showed that God always does what is right and fair, as in the past when he was patient and did not punish people for their sins. And God gave Jesus to show today that he does what is right. God did this so he could judge rightly and so he could make right any person who has faith in Jesus. (NCV)

The International Standard Version (in process) follows some scholars who see hilasterion as the place where this occurs. [As one example of such scholarship, note this: “Therefore we can translate: ‘God has publicly set him forth as the place of expiation through faith in his blood.’” The Exegetical Dictionary of the Old Testament, art. hilasterion.]:

[Christ Jesus], whom God offered as a place where atonement by Christ’s blood could occur through faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because he had waited patiently to deal with sins committed in the past. He wanted to demonstrate at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the person who has the faithfulness of Jesus. (ISV)

They also use the word “atonement” which of course can be understood many ways… At least there is the attempt to provide a “more open” view that can be understood in a wider framework. When it comes to the Good News Bible (1976) even this “less legal” version reworks the verse to make sure it is the blood that is explicitly the means for the forgiveness of sins:

God offered him, so that by his blood he should become the means by which people’s sins are forgiven through their faith in him. God did this in order to demonstrate that he is righteous. In the past he was patient and overlooked people’s sins; but in the present time he deals with their sins, in order to demonstrate his righteousness. In this way God shows that he himself is righteous and that he puts right everyone who believes in Jesus. (GNB)

As an example of a more “dynamic” translation there is The Message (2002) which does this:

God sacrificed Jesus on the altar of the world to clear that world of sin. Having faith in him sets us in the clear. God decided on this course of action in full view of the public—to set the world in the clear with himself through the sacrifice of Jesus, finally taking care of the sins he had so patiently endured. This is not only clear, but it’s now—this is current history! God sets things right. He also makes it possible for us to live in his rightness. (The Message)

This could be seen as “reading in” to the text a certain theological viewpoint. An even more extreme case is that of the New Living Translation of 1996:

For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times. And he is entirely fair and just in this present time when he declares sinners to be right in his sight because they believe in Jesus. (NLT 1996)

One is hard put to find in the Greek any of these concepts… Maybe this is why the next version of the New Living Translation (2004) was “toned down”, and reads as follows, however still very much promoting a legal aspect of atonement:

For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus. (NLT 2004)

A Different Understanding

As we’ve already seen, much hinges on theological understandings, presuppositions, and how hilasterion is to be translated (as well as other issues as to what “blood” really means). (Hilasterion only otherwise found in the NT in Hebrews 9:5).  The majority of English translations are committed to presenting a legal explanation as to how we are “set right with God” to the extent that even the phrase “the righteousness of God” is taken to mean the way God makes us right.

Much more could be added, particularly recent scholarship that examines the meaning of hilasterion, and the linking with a cognate word, hilasmos, meaning “atonement”—and then what at-one-ment might mean!

However let us conclude with a different understanding of what is being said here in Romans 3:25, 26. Translating way back in 1382, John Wycliffe rendered these verses like this:

[Christ Jesus], Whom God ordained forgiver [Whom God purposed an helper], by faith in his blood, to the showing of his rightwiseness, for [the] remission of before-going sins, in the bearing up of God, to the showing of his rightwiseness in this time, that he be just, and justifying him that is of the faith of Jesus Christ. (Wycliffe)

Forgiver or helper gives a very different perspective on how Jesus brings this atonement… Then this is Graham Maxwell’s version, since as he said, “I don’t know a version that I like just right,” he decided “to venture a translation”:

God showed His Son publicly dying as a means of reconciliation to be taken advantage of by faith. This death was to demonstrate God’s own righteousness, because in His divine forbearance He had apparently overlooked men’s former sins. This was to demonstrate His own truthfulness and righteousness. (Maxwell)

Here the focus is back on God and his “rightness,” (or “rightwiseness” if you prefer Wycliffe!), and how Jesus is the means of reconciliation. He is bringing humanity and divinity back into harmony, one-ness, which is the key meaning that Tyndale had in mind when he coined the word atonement.

That’s the reason why I “ventured a translation” (the Freedom Bible Version, in process) I wanted to make sure that hilasterion is seen as reconciliation—the reconciliation that God offers, that is hased on the fact that God is truly right, that he proves it, and that he makes right all who trust:

[Christ Jesus,] whom God presented to bring about reconciliation as we trust in him. He shed his blood to prove he is truly right, for previously he would hold back and pass over sins, but now at this time God proves he does what’s right, and that he makes right those who trust in Jesus. (FBV)

For “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.” He is turning us enemies into his friends. The problem is with us, not with God. (See Rom 5:10, 1 Cor 5:16-21, Col 1:22).

-end-

Some Explanatory Comments Regarding Translations: Particularly in Reference to Romans 3:25, 26.
© Jonathan Gallagher 2010. Ver1.1a. March 9, 2010