Another Christmas

I hope you had a very merry and blessed Christmas and were able to spend time with family and friends.

As I write this, Christmas Day was four days ago, and it's "all over" for another year. It is true the presents have been opened, the festive food and drink consumed, the carols sung, the Christmas servces attended. Soon our focus will move on to the New Year celebrations—always a strong tradition in my native Scotland—and the resolutions and plans for 2025.

Yet the thing is that Christmas cannot simply be "all over" or "put away" like the boxes of decorations until next December.

What we celebrate at Christmastime is that the birth of Jesus made the world different. It could never be the same again. 

If you are Christian, you understand this already. Anyone reading this who is not yet a Christian, I hope one day you will come to understand it soon.

The coming of Jesus to this world really does mean it is like Christmas every day (and not just in the words of a chessy Christmas pop song).

One of the titles given to Jesus is "Immanuel" which as Matthew 1:23 says (quoting from Isaiah 7:14), means "God with us."

His coming was not a temporary visit. He came to be with us and he is still with us now, in our hearts and by the Holy Spirit.

I pray that you will have Immanuel with you and in you, as we head into the new year in a few day's time.

Waiting for God

The season of advent focuses the Christian church on the need to wait for God. Waiting should be seen as a spiritual discipline. In our modern world, to deliberately stop and wait for something is a very countercultural act. As a culture we prioritise, maybe even idolise, speed and limitation, if not the elimination, of waiting.

During advent, we spend four weeks focusing on the wait. The wait of God's people for centuries for the Messiah to come in his birth at Christmas. We focus too on the wait of God's people for centuries for the Messiah to come again to judge the world and reign over a new heavens and new earth in the eternal Kingdom.

The Bible values waiting. Isaiah 40:31 reads: "They who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint."

In Psalm 130:5-6, we read: "I wait for the Lord, my soul waits, and in his word I hope; my soul waits for the Lord more than watchmen for the morning, more than watchmen for the morning."

I always find these verses among the most emotional in the Psalms, especially that use of repetition in verse 6. 

Are we waiting for the Lord this advent? Waiting not only for Christmas, which Lord willing, will surely come around again later this month. Waiting not only for the return of Jesus, which will surely come at the appointed time. But are we waiting on the Lord as the Psalmist waited, with hope in his word, and with a longing to be redeemed and see all our nation redeemed, set free to love and serve the living God.

I pray we are waiting with expectation and readiness, and more than watchmen waiting for the morning, more than watchmen waiting for the morning.

Appearance of Age in Creation

Although I'm currently open-minded as to whether six-day young earth creationism is correct or not, I'm pretty sure that if God created the universe in six ordinary 24-hour days, then he certainly created a mature creation in that time. 

In other words, God created Adam and Eve as mature adults, not as babies, so if a scientist had been able to see them on the day they were made, every indication would be that they were 20-30 years old. The same would seem to hold for all the rest of creation: mature birds, fish and animals, full-grown trees in Eden, and so forth.

One of the main arguments against a young creation with a mature (i.e. much older) appearance has always been that this makes God deceptive in His creative acts.

I have to say that I find this one of the least convincing objections imaginable.

If God did create the universe that includes mature animals and plants in the way described in Genesis, how can God be accused of any deception? If this interpretation is correct, God has plainly stated the timescale of creation both in the Genesis accounts of chapters one and two and in the genealogies that follow in Genesis, and He has plainly stated that he made Adam and Eve as grown adults. Quite how this can be viewed as deceptive since God has explicitly explained creation in a way that demands a variance between appearance and actual chronological age I have never understood.

Deception would be to say he literally created in ordinary six days, but in fact took billions of years. (Note, this is not the same as arguing that the days are to be taken other than as literal history or are not ordinary 24-hour days). 

It is no deception to reveal He literally created in six days thousands of years ago if in fact He did so, even if the creation included an appearance of a history it never in fact had. How could a mature human being be created in an instant be otherwise? It is no more a deception than Jesus' miracle of turning water into wine at Cana could be considered deception, since the wine instantly created had all the appearance of having once grown as grapes, been picked, pressed, fermented, stored and matured, when it never had.

If I were going to be a young earth creationist, this would be where I would probably construct at least part of my argument for how it is possible to take the creation account literally without rejecting the claims of mainstream science. This is not a popular approach, even among young earth creationists, but I think the appearance of age must be at least part of the answer and can be arrived at on the face of the text in Genesis just as much as the days being 24 hours long.

I think the appearance of age view is a useful approach if a literal view of Genesis 1 and a young earth is advocated.

We Need Another Bible Translation

You might be forgiven for thinking that the last thing we need is ye t another Bible translation in English. There are already a plethora or committee and single-author translations of the whole Bible or the New Testament.

There are some 56 versions available on the Biblegateway website alone. There are estimated to be somewhere around 900 English translations in total of either the whole Bible or the New Testament.

There are translations of every stripe from the historical King James Version on the one hand to "The Message" paraphrase on the other.

There are MANY excellent mainstream translations widely available in print or online including the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New Amercian Standard Bible, New King James Version, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation and others.

Why on earth would anyone claim we need another one?

I have one good reason why we could do with at least one more.

Of all the versions widely available today and produced by a translation committee as opposed to the work of a single individual, there are two based on the historic Textus Receptus Greek New Testament (this is the text published at the time of the Reformation and on which the King James Version is based - as well as similar translations in other languages such as Luther's Bible in German). These are the King James Version (1611) and the New King James Verion (1982). The Textus Receptus reflects the majority of Greek manuscripts most of the time, but also includes a number of "minority" readings, and a few with little or no Greek support at all.

All other modern committee translations are based on what is known as the "Critical text" of the New Testament. The critical text, in places where there are textual variants in the Greek, tends to follow a low number of the oldest manuscripts rather than vast majority of Greek manuscripts.

There are currently NO versions produced by a committee based entirely on what could be called either the Majority Text or the Byzantine Text. This Greek text reproduces the text which the great majority of Greek manuscripts contain. In most variants, the Byzantine Text represents 95% or more of the existing Greek manuscripts. The Critical Text tends to accept the evidence of a very small number of witnesses (sometimes as little as one or two manuscripts) and often under 5% of the manuscripts.

The difficulty is that the oldest manuscripts that tend to be given more weight by textual critics are few in number while the Byzantine Text has the support of the great majority of manuscripts, but these are later in date. Which one is favoured is a complex issue. The question is which text represents to original authentic text? Is the few earliest witnesses (1-5% of the Greek evidence) or the majority of later witness (frequently 95%+ of the Greek manuscripts)?

I have always found it difficult to accept that the correct original text lay largely undiscovered to the church at large for over a thousand years before being recovered in the 19th century and reconstructed over the course of 100 years from the 1880s onwards. Equally, I find it very difficult that when the manuscripts are examined, often 95-99% of manuscripts are deemed WRONG (even where they frequently agree with one another) and the correct text is deemed to be found in a small handful of early manuscripts. Yet all modern translations widely available are based on this Critical Text (except the NKJV as noted).

To give a couple of examples to show how the weight of the evidence is ignored in many modern translations, consider these examples from the Gospels:

Luke 2:14

NIV: "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favour rests."

ESV: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased."

The NIV does not even footnote this, while the ESV footnote says that "some manuscripts" read "peace, good will among men."

The truth is that the ESV and NIV readings are based on around 0.4% of the manuscripts, and the "some manuscripts" represent 98.8% of the available evidence.

Here, the Textus Receptus underying the KJV follows the majority Byzantine text and reads in the familiar words:

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

Matthew 6:13

Most modern translations end the Lord's prayer at "deliver us from evil" (ESV) or "deliver us from the evil one" (NIV).

The NIV footnote says "Some late manuscripts" read "for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen"

The ESV says "Some manuscripts add" before quoting the familiar ending.

Note the choice of words - "some", "late" and "add".

In fact, 92.6% of manuscripts have the extended ending to the prayer and only 1.2% lack it. 90% of anything is not "some". At the very least the footnotes should say "most" not "some".

John 3:13

Here the NIV reads: "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man."

ESV is similar: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

The footnotes here read in the NIV that "some manuscripts" read "the Son of Man, who is in heaven."

ESV footnote: "Some manuscripts add..."

Here only 1.1% of manuscripts omit the extra words and 97.6% of manuscripts support having the extra words.

The NKJV reads, following the Textus Receptus and by extension the Byzantine majority text:

"No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man, who is in heaven."

There are hundreds of such texts in the New Testament where we are told that "some" or "a few" manuscripts read something which really means the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts favour the footnoted text.

So beware the footnotes in most bibles, they can be misleading as to the balance of the evidence.

Yet my point is not really which Greek text is more likely to be the original. The point is that it would be very useful to have a good English translation of this Majority or Byzantine text that reflects what by far the most Greek manuscripts indicate.

There are some good one-man translations out there, but they have the limitations and biases of the translator, and are unlikely to have a large impact on the churches.

I think it would be good to have a formal equivalent translation of the Byzantine text produced by a qualified committee of translators and backed up with the resources needed to get the translation on the main bible websites as well as produce a range of hard copies such as we have from Crossway for the ESV or Zondervan for the NIV.

If you are interested in an English translation from the Byzantine text there is one I would recommend and that is the "The Text Critical English New Testament" translated by one man, Robert Adam Boyd. I am grateulf to Boyd's work which not only translates the Majority text but has extensive footnotes on how this compares to a number of other Greek texts including the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text. The percentages referred in my examples come from this NT edition.

I would recommend reading Boyd's version alongside either the New King James Version, which also has good textual notes though not fully comprehensive, and the NIV or ESV to see where the variations lie and the real percentages of evidence rather that the misleading notes too frequently used in our main translations.

The Biblical Doctrine of Common Grace

Reformed theology is often regarded as a theology of particularism. We believe that God unconditionally elects a particular people for salvation. We believe Christ with the intention of saving only the elect. We believe the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect and that irresistible grace draws the elect to saving faith. The whole focus of our doctrine of salvation is on the saving grace of God shown to a particular people chosen by God from every nation, tongue and tribe on earth to be his own.

Yet in viewing the world as it is and the whole counsel of God in the Scriptures, Reformed theology also teaches the doctrine of common grace, to account for all the goodness God gives to people indiscriminately, elect and non-elect alike.

In this piece we have three objectives:

1. To define what we mean by common grace.

2. To explain the content of common grace

3. To present the biblical basis for common grace.

1. Defining Common Grace

Common grace is essentially the goodness and kindness God shows to all people, elect and non-elect alike, out of his love for them as his creatures, in this world.

I agree with the Presbyterian theologian, John Murray, who said that common grace is 'every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God.' (from 'Common Grace' in Murray's Collected Writings, Vol. 2).

Each part of Murray's definition is significant. Common grace covers every good things of any kind and to any extent that God gives to the world other than instant judgment and destruction. Yet the 'boundary' of common grace is, as Murray says, that these favours or gifts given by God are those 'falling short of salvation.'

The Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, provides a similar definition to Murray. Berkhof says that common grace is 'the natural blessings which God showers upon man in this present life, in sprite of the fact that man has forfeited them and lies under the sentence of death.' (Systematic Theology, p. 435).

The Reformed Baptist theologian, Wayne Grudem, makes the point that everything human beings receive from God other than immediate judgment must be considered gracious on God's part. He says:

Once people sin, God's justice would require only one thing—that they be eternally separated from God, cut off from experiencing any good from him, and that they live forever in hell, receiving only his wrath eternally. In fact this was what happened to the angels who sinned, and it could justly have happened to us as well. (Systematic Theology, p. 657)

Why didn't this happen? Grudem asks the pertinent questions: 'How can God continue to give blessings to sinners who deserve only death—not only to those who will ultimately be saved, but also to millions who will never be saved, whose sins will never be forgiven?' (p. 657).

The answer, of course, is common grace, which Grudem simply defines as 'the grace of God by which he gives people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation.'

The pastor-theologian, Sam Storms, helpfully defines 'common grace' like this:

Common grace, as an expression of the goodness of God, is every favor, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God; this includes the delay of wrath, the mitigation of our sin-natures, natural events that lead to prosperity, and all gifts that human use and enjoy naturally. ("The Goodness of God and Common Grace" at The Gospel Coalition).

A world of fallen, totally depraved sinners would soon dissolve into absolute mayhem, chaos and wickedness without common grace. Life in such a world would be as the philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, put it, one of 'continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' (Leviathan, I. xiii. 9).

The fact that the world is not, in general, like this, is accounted for in Reformed theology by common grace. The Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, put it this way:

[Common grace] curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children of men. (Systematic Theology, p. 434)

Yet, common grace has limitations. As it does not provide saving benefits, it only consists of 'temporary benefits' in this life. Although that does not make God's goodness or kindness any less real, they merely cover a temporary postponement of God's justice to come in the future. As Thomas Boston put it, such blessings are 'a mere temporary and permissive right, as a condemned man has to nourishment, as long as it pleases the king to postpone the execution, but this is a very uncertain and sad possession' (quoted by G. H. Kersten in his Dogmatic Theology, p.75).

Kersten, a Dutch Reformed theologian, says common grace has a threefold purpose:

• It glorifies God in the goodness and kindness he continues to show to humanity as his creatures.
• It supports God's good pleasure and purpose in bringing forth God's elect for salvation
• It exalts the righteouness of God in his judgment of the wicked (so they are utterly without excuse in rejecting God).

Having reviewed this material, I offer the following definition of common grace. 

Common grace is all temporal blessings given to human beings as creatures, proceeding from the goodness and love of God, furthering God's purpose in saving the elect and consistent with God's purpose in rejecting the reprobate.

2. The Content of Common Grace

Since common grace encompasses everything humanity receives from God other than immediate judgment and condemnation, the content of common grace is hugely extensive and it is not possible to cover every conceivable instance of common grace.

Yet theologians have put forward a number of broad categories of common grace, which we will briefly summarise.

1. Sustaining Life and the World - since the death sentence on sinners is delayed on average for 70 or more years, every day of life given to human beings from their birth is common grace. Sustaining the existence of the world is also part of God's providential care, as are things necessary to life such as the water cycle, seedtime and harvest, sunshine and rain.

2. Providing Good Things - this would include giving us family and friends, resources such as food, shelter, work, money, enjoyment, work, leisure, which are all enjoyed by the elect and non-elect alike.

3. Providential Restraint of Sin - instituting civil government to promote good and punish evil, limiting sinful behaviour, maintaining civil order, peace, police and armed forces, giving people a conscience .

4. Providing Civil, Cultural and Scientific Advances - this would include music, art, medical, scientific and technological advances to improve human life and flourishing.

3. The Biblical Basis of Common Grace

There are many Bible verses that speak to the type of non-saving gracious goodness and kindness extended to all people, that we call 'common grace.' The following verses all speak to aspects of common grace and most of them can be listed without additional comment. All verses are quoted from the New Heart English Bible simply because it is a modern translation in the public domain.

Psalm 145:8-9: "The LORD is gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and of great loving kindness. The LORD is good to all. His tender mercies are over all his works."

Acts 14:16-17: "In the generations gone by [He] allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet he did not leave himself without witness, in that he did good and gave you rains from the sky and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness."

2 Thessalonians 2:6-7: "Now you know what is restraining him, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness already works. Only there is one who restrains now, until he is taken out of the way."

Speaking here of the "Man of Lawlessness," Paul states that God is restraining sin, which of one of the central aspects of common grace, which accounts for how a world of totally depraved sinners is not as evil as we might expect it to be.

Romans 2:4: ""Or do you despise the riches of his goodness [or "kindness"], forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness [or "kindness"] of God leads you to repentance?"

Romans 2:14-15: "For when the non-Jews who do not have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, since they show the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them."

These verses in Romans 2 make it clear that even pagan non-believers have a conscience which is a gift from God, a particular part of his common grace to restrain sin and leave everyone without excuse.

The following passage is part of Paul's sermon at the Areopagus in Athens. Among other points, Paul is clear that every in our lives, including our lives themselves, come from God. Agreeing with a pagan poet, Paul says "in him we live, and move, and have our being."

Acts 17:24-31: "The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands, neither is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things. He made from one blood every nation of the human race to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live, and move, and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.' Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver, or stone, engraved by human art and design. The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent, because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to everyone by raising him from the dead."

Matthew 5:43-48: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbour, and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do than others? Do not even the non-Jews do the same? You therefore are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

This is one of the most relevant passages regarding common grace and is the direct teaching of Jesus himself. Clearly Christ links the command for us to love our enemies with the fact that God loves everyone and that from this love he sends good gifts to the righteous and unrighteous alike. This is practically the definition of what we mean by common grace. A similar but not identical version of Christ's teaching occurs in the next passage from Luke.

Luke 6:35-36: "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back; and your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, even as your Father is also merciful."

Christ links us loving our enemies and doing good to them with being children of God—which includes being like God since "he is kind" to all, even the unthankful and evil.

1 Timothy 6:17: "Charge those who are rich in this present world that they not be haughty, nor have their hope set on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy."

James 1:17: "All generous giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, nor turning shadow."

The Book of Zephaniah

The short book of the prophet Zephaniah, which comes near the end of the Old Testament, has always been one that I have loved and valued.

In this video from the Bible Project, the book is well explained. It deserves to be preached on more often.

Christian Standard Bible – Anglicised Edition

 

I was happy to find out that the Christian Standard Bible is going to be issued in an Anglicised edition with British spelling and usage. I understand the new edition will go on sale in June this year.

The Christian Standard Bible or CSB is a great translation. It first came out in 2017 and was a revision of the "Holman Christian Standard Bible" first published in 2004. The CSB translators claim it uses "optimal equivalence" as its translation philosophy which is to say it is more literal than the NIV but more functional than the ESV. It is a conservative evangelical committee translation produced by Holman Publishers in the USA. Often thought of as a "Baptist" translation because it was produced by a Baptist publishing house, it is not sectarian and involved scholars from 17 denominations to avoid denominational bias.

Like the NIV, the CSB is a completely fresh translation from the original languages and is not within the Tyndale/KJV/RV/ASV/RSV family tree, which means it does not necessarily follow "traditional" renderings. I believe this is a strong point in its favour, whenever a "new" rendering is more accurate to the Hebrew or Greek.

Here are a couple of sample verses from the CSB, which I think show the nature of the CSB as a translation:

Mark 9:3 - describing Jesus' appearance during the transfiguration - "and his clothes became dazzling—extremely white as no launderer on earth could whiten them."

Where the CSB has "no launderer" the NIV has "anyone" and the ESV has "no one" but the Greek has "γναφεὺς" (grapheus) - a launderer or "fuller" (KJV), thus the CSB is considerably more accurate.

Matthew 6:9 - "Our Father in heaven, your name be honoured as holy" moving away from "hallowed" in the Tyndale/KJV tradition, which few modern readers understand or use anywhere else except in the Lord's Prayer.

John 3:16 - "For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Here the CSB again moves from the traditional to the more accurate. "In this way" is an improvement on the traditional "so loved" which we tend to read as "loved so much" rather than "loved in this way" which is what the Greek word houtos usually means. Secondly, "everyone who believes" is better in my view than "whoever believes". 

The CSB also makes good use of footnotes where alternative translations are possible or where there are textual variants. Often the footnotes contain a more traditional or literal translation. 

For example in 1 John 2:2: "He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world" with a footnote "the propitiation."

Again in 2 Timothy 3:16a: "All Scripture is inspired by God" with a footnote "breathed out by God".

There is always a danger that the CSB will fall between two stools. It may not be literal or traditional enough for churches that favour the ESV and it may not be simple enough for churches that use the NIV or anything even more functionally equivalent like the NLT.

Yet the CSB is a very good translation and its fresh renderings in many places are helpful to contrast with the ESV/NRSV in the Tyndale tradition or with the NIV/NLT's more functional renderings.

How to tell if someone is a Christian?

I came across this video on YouTube, which features seven people who claim to be Christians in conversation.

The point is that only six are professing Christians and one is an atheist masquerading as a Christian. Through questions, the participants try to guess who is the imposter and vote them out. It is an interesting exercise.

Personally, I have some doubts about the credibility of some of the others who claim to be Christians as well, but that's beside the point.

Of more interest is to ask, how would we try to determine if somone claiming to be a Christian is genuine?

I don't think the questions asked in the video were very good. No one seemed to ask or talk about God at all. No one mentioned Jesus or the Holy Spirit. No one referred to prayer or Bible reading. At least not in the edited version we see in the video.

These are the kind of questions I would probably ask in this scenario:

• What led you to become a Christian?
• What kind of church do you attend?
• What Bible translation do you mostly read?
• What's your favourite Bible verse?
• What's your favourite hymn or worship song?
• Do you serve in any capacity at your church?

Of course, someone deliberately setting out to deceive could probably come up with answers to these, so who knows. In my experience, most Christians are very willing to accept someone's profession of faith as genuine.

More important than our personal "tests" is to see what the Bible says about what makes a Christian. Some relevant verses are the following:

• A Christian is someone who has been born again by the Holy Spirit. The phrase "born-again Christian" is a redundancy. See John 3:3-8.
• A Christian is someone who has faith in Jesus to save them. See Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16
  
• A Christian is someone who seeks to follow Jesus in obedience to his teachings. See 1 John 2:3-6.
• A Christian is someone who confesses that Jesus is Lord and believes that God raised him from the dead. See Romans 10:9
• A Christian is someone who seeks to turn away (repent) of their sins. See Matthew 3:2, Mark 1:15, Acts 2:38, 2 Peter 3:9.

The folk in this video seem to associate being a Christian with going to church and maybe having some kind of spiritual experience. I was quite shocked that none of them mentioned a personal relationship with Jesus or God the Father or the Holy Spirit.

The Meaning and Translation of "Hilasterion" in Romans 3:25

Paul's Letter to the Romans is a key part of the New Testament, the letter in which the gospel or good news is given its fullest explanation. Within this letter, the section in Romans 3:21-26 is central to the meaning of the doctrine of salvation and within that section verse 25 is a key verse. 

The focus of our discussion is on the meaning and translation of this word "hilasterion" in this verse. 

1. Description of the Possible Translations

While we confess that ‘all Scripture is God-breathed’ (2 Tim. 3:16) meaning that all of Scripture comes from God, we recognise that not all the God-breathed Scriptures are equally important. Obviously, for example, the crucifixion and resurrection narratives of the Gospels are more important to the people of God and the message of salvation than say a genealogy of names in Genesis or Chronicles. Paul’s Letter to the Romans is one of the most important books in the New Testament because it is where we find the fullest exposition of Paul’s gospel. Within Romans, chapter 3 verse 25 is a key verse. And within that verse the key word is ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion). This word is the focus of this paper.

The verse reads as follows (author’s translation)—from verse 24 to give the context:

24 Being declared righteous freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a hilasterion, by his blood, to be received through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness because in the forbearance of God he passed over the sins committed beforehand.

The correct translation of this word "hilasterion" into English has a long history of controversy and debate. English translations of the word divide into five main categories as explained below.

a. Mercy Seat or Atonement Cover

The first group of translations sees hilasterion as a direct reference to the cover of the Ark of the Covenant, traditionally known as the ‘mercy seat’ or other more descriptive translations such as ‘atonement lid’ or ‘atonement cover.’ 

This view sees hilasterion as the direct Greek equivalent of the Hebrew, כַּפֹּרֶת (kapporeth) which is the lid of the Ark of the Covenant, commanded by God to be made (Ex. 25:17 ff.), the place where God’s presence would rest and make atonement for the sins of his people. 

Translations taking this approach include the following:

God presented him as the mercy seat by his blood, through faith (CSB)

whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood (Darby)

whom God publicly displayed as the atonement seat through faith in his blood (EHV)

God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith (NET)

Whom God hath set forth as a propitiatory covering, through faith in his blood. (Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible)

Whom God purposed for a Propitiatory shelter, through faith in His blood. (Concordant Literal Version)

This interpretation sees Paul’s argument being that just as the mercy seat on the ark was the place where the people’s sins were taken away, God’s wrath removed, and God’s reconciliation with his people established, so the cross of Jesus Christ was the reality of that Old Testament type. It should be noted that the last two translations above make it explicit that the kapporeth being referred to is much more than merely the lid of the covenant box or ark, it has deep theological meaning—it is a propitiatory shelter or covering—meaning it is the place where God’s wrath against sin is dealt with and taken away or removed.

b. Propitiation

The second group of translations does not link hilasterion directly to the mercy seat, but instead sees it as a reference to the means or place of propitiation (the means by which or place where sin is taken away, wrath turned aside and justice is satisfied). The translations which take this approach includes some of the most commonly used literal translations in English, as follows:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. (KJV)

whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood. (ASV)

whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith. (NKJV)

whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (ESV)

whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. (NASB 1995)

whom God put forward as the means of propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (Moffatt)

Two versions agree that the hilasterion is a propitiation, but rather than use this technical term which would doubtless be difficult to understand for many English readers, they explain the concept of propitiation:

God presented him as the one who would turn aside his wrath taking away sin through faith in his blood. (NIV 1984 marginal reading)

For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us. (NLT 1996)

c. Expiation

Some English translations, particularly it must be admitted, translations at least influenced by liberal theology, which have a tendency to deny or play down the concept of the wrath of God, see in hilasterion a reference to the taking away of sin, but not the turning aside or satisfying God’s wrath. For these translations, rather than use ‘propitiation’ with its connotation of appeasing or satisfying wrath, they use the word ‘expiation’ which connotes only to the taking away or removal of sin, without reference to wrath.

This position is found in the following versions:

whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (RSV)

For God designed him to be the means of expiating sin by his death, effective through faith. (REB)

whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood. (NABRE)

d. Reconciliation

A few English translations take hilasterion to refer not to the expiating of sin or the propitiating of wrath, but to the end result of expiation and propitiation, which is the reconciliation of God and sinners and believe this was Paul’s point in Romans 3:25. These versions include the following:

Whom God hath set forth to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood. (Geneva)

For God showed him publicly dying as a sacrifice of reconciliation to be taken advantage of through faith. (Goodspeed)

whom God purposed for reconciliation through faith in his blood. (Jubilee Bible 2000)

e. Other ‘Non-Committal’ Options

Finally, some translations, either for reasons of simplicity for the reader or from a desire to avoid the controversies surrounding the historic and ongoing ‘expiation vs propitiation’ debate, opt for a more general translation such as ‘sacrifice of atonement’ which could allow for either expiation, propitiation, or indeed reconciliation, which ‘sacrifice of atonement’ at least hints at.
    Versions taking this approach include the following:

Through his faithfulness, God displayed Jesus as the place of sacrifice where mercy is found by means of his blood. (CEB)

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood. (NIV 1984 main text)

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. (NIV 2011)

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. (NLT 2004)

whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. (NRSV)

2. Assessment of the Translation Options

Of these five possible approaches, I think there are three we can dismiss quite easily and two that have strong claims.

The translations I would set aside first are the last three. To take the last one first, translating "hilasterion" as "sacrifice of atonement" is only a very broad attempt to explain the concept behind the word. Although "hilasterion" does imply an atoning sacrifice, this does not adequately explain the word's meaning and could be viewed as something of a "cop out".

Likewise, although the "hilasterion" can lead to reconciliation between the offended and the guilty party, the word does not itself refer to reconciliation.

Finally, the translation "expiation" or "expiating sacrifice" should be rejected as it does not cover the full menaing of "hilasterion". Expiation refers to the removal of guilt, but that is only half of the meaning of "hilasterion". As has been well-explained by Leon Morris, John Stott and others writing on the atonement, "expiation" has been favoured by theologians who do not believe that the atonement involves dealing with the wrath of God against sinners. But one of the key aspects of a "hilasterion" is appeasing or satisfying God's wrath.

It is for this reason that the word has traditionally been translated as "propitiation" (meaning either the means of propitiation or the place of propitiaiton). Propitiation implies both expiation (removal of guilt for sin) and the turning aside of God's wrath against sinners. For this reason, "propitiation" or an explanatory phrase meaning the same found in the NIV 1984 margin or the 1996 NLT is a good translation as far as I am concerned. The only problem with it, it might be argued, is that the word is not well understood by many readers. Chambers Dictionary defines "propitiate" as meaning "to appease or placate (an angry or insulted person or god)" and it is this appeasing, placating or satisfying divine anger or wrath that is the key aspect of "hilasterion" that most other translations omit or downplay.

Some scholars believe that Paul was not referring to a place or means of propitation in a generic sense, but rather they see this as a clear alluding to the Old Testament "mercy seat" or "atonement cover" - the lid of the ark of the covenant, the place where the people's sins were taken away and the wrath of God averted or appeased or placated. Some translations use "propitiatory cover" or "proptiatory shelter" to try to cover both concepts.

It is a difficult judgment whether to translate in a more general sense of "propitiation" or the more specific sense of "mercy seat" or "propitiatory cover". We cannot be entirely certain which of the two Paul had in mind. The difference is a translation problem, but not a theological one because both have the same meaning: the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross took away the guilt of sin and turned aside the wrath of God against sin by taking the punishment directly in his own flesh. 

If I had to pick one, I would go with the more general term "propitation" as I am not certain Paul was solely making an Old Testament allusion to the "mercy seat" when writing to a largely Gentile church in Rome. Although "hilasterion" was used in the Greek Septuagint as the translation of the mercy seat (the atonement lid on the ark of the covenant), "hilasterion" is a broader theological concept than the noun for the covenant box lid, and so on balance I think the wider theological term "propitiaton" or an explanation of what "propitiaiton" means is preferable in our English translations, with the single word "propitiation" being more suited for formal equivalent translations and a phrasal explanation such as "the way of turning aside God's wrath and taking away sin" being more suitable for functional equivalent translations.