The NLT and the Language of Atonement
04/09/2009 09:30 Filed in: Faith & Reason
Can the NLT be used to teach theology if it doesn't use theological terms?
Todd Benkert is a pastor in Indiana and a friend of mine I’ve known for quite a while. Over the years, we’ve had a number of discussions including ones about what what translations are beneficial for teaching and preaching. As I’ve been contemplating making the NLT my primary public use Bible in the church (I’ve already been using it with college classes that I teach), Todd has been thinking about using the NLT from the pulpit. Currently, he uses the ESV, but he recognizes its deficiencies.
In a recent post on Todd’s website Be My Witnesses, we got into a discussion about whether or not the NLT would work in certain public settings. In the comments, Todd wrote the following:
My main qualm, which I can't decide if its a strength or weakness of the NLT, is that is removes justification terminology from the text (see, e.g., Rom 3). On the one hand, it is helpful because the concept is now accessible to the reader. On the other hand, the systematic theologian in me want to retain the word and then explain it. If I can get over that, then I'm all in with the NLT.
Todd gave me permission to reproduce my reply here which I’ve cleaned up a little bit and reproduced below:
Let's take for instance Romans 3:25, which in the ESV reads:
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.
Now, I chose the above verse because it is from Rom 3, which you referred to as a chapter in the NLT which "removes justification terminology from the text." I also made bold propitiation because it is certainly a prime example of "justification terminology."
Propitiation is one of those heavily loaded theological words which carries a lot of meaning in a very small label. Now, as you know fully well, the underlying Greek word is ἱλαστήριον. When a word like propitiation is used in a verse like this, really it acts more as a placeholder for the larger context. In other words, the average person in the pew--in your pew--is probably not going to walk around with a fully developed theology of propitiation in his or her head. Some will, but realistically, most won't.
What this means is that regardless of what word is used here, whether it is propitiation orhg the phrase "sacrifice of atonement" (NIV, NRSV), it will still require some amount of explanation by you. Incidentally, the word atonement was coined by Tyndale for use in his OT translation because he couldn't find a suitable English word for כָּפַר.
The question remains whether it is better to have that theologically loaded word (really just a label, a placeholder) propitiation in the text or is something else just as suitable or even better?
I've seen people evaluate translations of the Bible (and I think I used to do it myself) based on whether the word propitiation was used or not in the New Testament, specifically in Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 John 2:2; and 4:10 (although technically, the last two references use ἱλασμός in the Greek).
What's interesting is that although the word propitiation was used in the King James Version, it was not used in William Tyndale's translation upon which the KJV was primarily based.
The Tyndale NT reads this way (with emphasis added) in Rom 3:25
whom God hath made a seate of mercy thorow faith in his bloud to shewe ye rightewesnes which before him is of valoure in yt he forgeveth ye synnes yt are passed which God dyd suffre
So where did the KJV translators get the word propitiation from? Why, straight out of the Latin Vulgate! Here is Rom 3:25 in Latin:
quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine ipsius ad ostensionem iustitiae suae propter remissionem praecedentium delictorum
What is inescapable, regardless of how one looks at it, is the KJV translators, rather than trying to actually translate ἱλαστήριον into an English equivalent, instead "cheated" and just grabbed the Latin word (this, of course, is not much different than what was done by simply transliterating βαπτίζω as baptize, rather than correctly translating it as "immerse," but now the real "Baptist" [pun intended] is coming out in me).
So, what does ἱλαστήριον actually mean (I know you know what it means, but bear with me for sake of discussion)? Or what is it that Jesus actually did for us on the cross (the real question)? I'm not going to try to answer the second question just yet, but I will say that when NT writers, especially in the epistles, try to answer that question, their answer at the most basic level is some kind of common analogy for what took place on a spiritual level. This is true, regardless of whether Paul is speaking of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 or ἀντίλυτρον ("ransom") in 1 Tim 2:6. In the Reformation, emphasis came back upon ἱλαστήριον as a primary image (which I completely affirm), but in the early church, made up of the poor and in many cases, freed slaves, the idea of ἀντίλυτρον was favored. The reality is we need all of the images the NT provides to try to understand what Jesus did for us on the cross.
But back to my original question in regard to what ἱλαστήριον actually means-- When Paul uses this word, he is borrowing it from two arenas. On one hand, it's a pagan word used to describe the appeasement of a foreign god in their sacrificial ceremonies. The word meant this throughout ancient Greek literature, especially in regard to appeasing the wrath of the pagan God through sacrifice. On the other hand, the word ἱλαστήριον had been "co-opted" a couple of centuries earlier by the writers of the Septuagint to refer to the Old Testament mercy seat--the place above the ark of the covenant where sacrificial blood was sprinkled by the high priest to make atonement (thank you, William Tyndale) for Israel's sins; that is, to restore the people of Israel into fellowship with God.
So what did Jesus do on the cross (if I can take a stab at the second question now)? Well, to follow the lead of the NT writers and also Tyndale, he "mercy seated" us with God.
Now, back to that Latin label/placeholder propitiation... This word sees the ἱλαστήριον as the place of atonement. Jesus was the "place" where God's anger was removed. But as you probably remember, C. H. Dodd in The Bible and the Greeks rejected Jesus as the place of atonement. He saw this as too closely tied to paganism. Furthermore, he was uncomfortable with the idea of a "wrathful" God. He said expiation was a better translation because it was God’s appointed means to deal with our situation. On the Day of Atonement, he makes the effects of sin ineffective. Emphasis is on what God does (expiation), rather than what humans do (propitiation).
And of course, C. H. Dodd influenced translations of the Bible such as the RSV and NEB that opted for the word expiation in a verse like Rom 3:25 rather than propitiation.
But then Leon Morris came along, and in New Testament Studies said that wrath was indeed present in both Old and New Testaments (contrary to Dodd). Further, Morris went on to say that ἱλαστήριον is not an either/or in regard to expiation or propitiation, but a both/and: Morris said God expiates and is propitiated. The opposite of love is not wrath; the two are not incompatible. Anger is an appropriate reaction at times to those you love. The opposite of love is hatred—something into which anger can turn. Morris saw wrath as a positive angry love that does many wonderful things in the world.
In the Day of Atonement, God’s anger loomed large. Sin was taken seriously. Paul’s thought was how the Day of Atonement was understood in his time, not necessarily when it was who first proclaimed in Leviticus.
Since Morris, we have seen the rise of Bible translations that opted not to use either word (propitiation or expiation), but rather simply to translate ἱλαστήριον as "sacrifice of atonement" or something similar, leaving it up to the preacher or teacher to explain further if desired.
So back to the NLT...
The 1996 NLT reading of Rom 3:25 may have simply tried to do too much:
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.
There's definitely the standard "propitiatory" language in there. In fact, propitiation is defined pretty clearly in that rendering, over and above what the Greek actually says.
The 2004 revision is less overt:
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
"Jesus as the sacrifice for sin" is probably closer to that non-specific "sacrifice of atonement" in the NRSV & NIV.
And for point of reference, the translators for Romans in the NLT are Gerald Borchert, Douglas Moo and Thom Schreiner -- a pretty good mix of scholarship and viewpoint.
So, finally, back to your original concern, regardless of how it's worded, I believe there's still PLENTY for you as pastor/teacher to explain. I really wouldn't let lack of formal theological language--especially those which are simply Latin loan words--hold you back.
Todd Benkert is a pastor in Indiana and a friend of mine I’ve known for quite a while. Over the years, we’ve had a number of discussions including ones about what what translations are beneficial for teaching and preaching. As I’ve been contemplating making the NLT my primary public use Bible in the church (I’ve already been using it with college classes that I teach), Todd has been thinking about using the NLT from the pulpit. Currently, he uses the ESV, but he recognizes its deficiencies.
In a recent post on Todd’s website Be My Witnesses, we got into a discussion about whether or not the NLT would work in certain public settings. In the comments, Todd wrote the following:
My main qualm, which I can't decide if its a strength or weakness of the NLT, is that is removes justification terminology from the text (see, e.g., Rom 3). On the one hand, it is helpful because the concept is now accessible to the reader. On the other hand, the systematic theologian in me want to retain the word and then explain it. If I can get over that, then I'm all in with the NLT.
Todd gave me permission to reproduce my reply here which I’ve cleaned up a little bit and reproduced below:
Let's take for instance Romans 3:25, which in the ESV reads:
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.
Now, I chose the above verse because it is from Rom 3, which you referred to as a chapter in the NLT which "removes justification terminology from the text." I also made bold propitiation because it is certainly a prime example of "justification terminology."
Propitiation is one of those heavily loaded theological words which carries a lot of meaning in a very small label. Now, as you know fully well, the underlying Greek word is ἱλαστήριον. When a word like propitiation is used in a verse like this, really it acts more as a placeholder for the larger context. In other words, the average person in the pew--in your pew--is probably not going to walk around with a fully developed theology of propitiation in his or her head. Some will, but realistically, most won't.
What this means is that regardless of what word is used here, whether it is propitiation orhg the phrase "sacrifice of atonement" (NIV, NRSV), it will still require some amount of explanation by you. Incidentally, the word atonement was coined by Tyndale for use in his OT translation because he couldn't find a suitable English word for כָּפַר.
The question remains whether it is better to have that theologically loaded word (really just a label, a placeholder) propitiation in the text or is something else just as suitable or even better?
I've seen people evaluate translations of the Bible (and I think I used to do it myself) based on whether the word propitiation was used or not in the New Testament, specifically in Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 John 2:2; and 4:10 (although technically, the last two references use ἱλασμός in the Greek).
What's interesting is that although the word propitiation was used in the King James Version, it was not used in William Tyndale's translation upon which the KJV was primarily based.
The Tyndale NT reads this way (with emphasis added) in Rom 3:25
whom God hath made a seate of mercy thorow faith in his bloud to shewe ye rightewesnes which before him is of valoure in yt he forgeveth ye synnes yt are passed which God dyd suffre
So where did the KJV translators get the word propitiation from? Why, straight out of the Latin Vulgate! Here is Rom 3:25 in Latin:
quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine ipsius ad ostensionem iustitiae suae propter remissionem praecedentium delictorum
What is inescapable, regardless of how one looks at it, is the KJV translators, rather than trying to actually translate ἱλαστήριον into an English equivalent, instead "cheated" and just grabbed the Latin word (this, of course, is not much different than what was done by simply transliterating βαπτίζω as baptize, rather than correctly translating it as "immerse," but now the real "Baptist" [pun intended] is coming out in me).
So, what does ἱλαστήριον actually mean (I know you know what it means, but bear with me for sake of discussion)? Or what is it that Jesus actually did for us on the cross (the real question)? I'm not going to try to answer the second question just yet, but I will say that when NT writers, especially in the epistles, try to answer that question, their answer at the most basic level is some kind of common analogy for what took place on a spiritual level. This is true, regardless of whether Paul is speaking of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 or ἀντίλυτρον ("ransom") in 1 Tim 2:6. In the Reformation, emphasis came back upon ἱλαστήριον as a primary image (which I completely affirm), but in the early church, made up of the poor and in many cases, freed slaves, the idea of ἀντίλυτρον was favored. The reality is we need all of the images the NT provides to try to understand what Jesus did for us on the cross.
But back to my original question in regard to what ἱλαστήριον actually means-- When Paul uses this word, he is borrowing it from two arenas. On one hand, it's a pagan word used to describe the appeasement of a foreign god in their sacrificial ceremonies. The word meant this throughout ancient Greek literature, especially in regard to appeasing the wrath of the pagan God through sacrifice. On the other hand, the word ἱλαστήριον had been "co-opted" a couple of centuries earlier by the writers of the Septuagint to refer to the Old Testament mercy seat--the place above the ark of the covenant where sacrificial blood was sprinkled by the high priest to make atonement (thank you, William Tyndale) for Israel's sins; that is, to restore the people of Israel into fellowship with God.
So what did Jesus do on the cross (if I can take a stab at the second question now)? Well, to follow the lead of the NT writers and also Tyndale, he "mercy seated" us with God.
Now, back to that Latin label/placeholder propitiation... This word sees the ἱλαστήριον as the place of atonement. Jesus was the "place" where God's anger was removed. But as you probably remember, C. H. Dodd in The Bible and the Greeks rejected Jesus as the place of atonement. He saw this as too closely tied to paganism. Furthermore, he was uncomfortable with the idea of a "wrathful" God. He said expiation was a better translation because it was God’s appointed means to deal with our situation. On the Day of Atonement, he makes the effects of sin ineffective. Emphasis is on what God does (expiation), rather than what humans do (propitiation).
And of course, C. H. Dodd influenced translations of the Bible such as the RSV and NEB that opted for the word expiation in a verse like Rom 3:25 rather than propitiation.
But then Leon Morris came along, and in New Testament Studies said that wrath was indeed present in both Old and New Testaments (contrary to Dodd). Further, Morris went on to say that ἱλαστήριον is not an either/or in regard to expiation or propitiation, but a both/and: Morris said God expiates and is propitiated. The opposite of love is not wrath; the two are not incompatible. Anger is an appropriate reaction at times to those you love. The opposite of love is hatred—something into which anger can turn. Morris saw wrath as a positive angry love that does many wonderful things in the world.
In the Day of Atonement, God’s anger loomed large. Sin was taken seriously. Paul’s thought was how the Day of Atonement was understood in his time, not necessarily when it was who first proclaimed in Leviticus.
Since Morris, we have seen the rise of Bible translations that opted not to use either word (propitiation or expiation), but rather simply to translate ἱλαστήριον as "sacrifice of atonement" or something similar, leaving it up to the preacher or teacher to explain further if desired.
So back to the NLT...
The 1996 NLT reading of Rom 3:25 may have simply tried to do too much:
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.
There's definitely the standard "propitiatory" language in there. In fact, propitiation is defined pretty clearly in that rendering, over and above what the Greek actually says.
The 2004 revision is less overt:
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
"Jesus as the sacrifice for sin" is probably closer to that non-specific "sacrifice of atonement" in the NRSV & NIV.
And for point of reference, the translators for Romans in the NLT are Gerald Borchert, Douglas Moo and Thom Schreiner -- a pretty good mix of scholarship and viewpoint.
So, finally, back to your original concern, regardless of how it's worded, I believe there's still PLENTY for you as pastor/teacher to explain. I really wouldn't let lack of formal theological language--especially those which are simply Latin loan words--hold you back.