# What Is The True Christian Religion?/Chapter 17

THE TRANSLATORS OF THE BIBLE
The men who have translated the Bible into modern tongues have been sincere and honest to a degree that honors God and man. With a devotion and a dedication to their task, throughout the middle ages and modern times, they have exhibited an honesty, an integrity, which is surpassing in its loyalty to the highest ideals o£ conduct. They have tried, and are still striving, to give the exact ideas incorporated in the Holy Word, without bias or prejudice.
Nevertheless as human beings, with certain fixed ideas derived from tradition, it was impossible to escape from the bias received from the almost universally accepted theology which they believed to be the perfect expression of the Divine thought.
The influence of St. Anselm in his concept, which he introduced into Christian theology before modern translations were begun, of of God as an inexorable pitiless King who demanded satisfaction for violated law, thus a man who believed that at-one-ment, or reconciliation, meant atonement or expiation in order to satisfy Eternal Justice, is shown inevitably in their translations. Pre-conceived opinions are difficult to escape from in the exercise of human judgment.
And it is almost impossible for us to read the Bible without seeing the confirmation of what has thus been subtly introduced into it by translation. The way to prove that mistranslations exist is to give examples of them.
In Romans 3:25 we find in the Authorized Version the word propitiation used. It is precisely the same word as is used in Hebrews 9:5 as "mercy seat." It is the Greek word Hilasterion, meaning primarily "mercy seat." Why should it not have been translated in Romans 3:25 as "mercy seat?" We find in the English and American Revised Versions, which largely follow the Authorized or King James Version of 1611, the same usage. This translation has chiefly influenced the English-speaking world and fastened the heathen idea of propitiation upon religious people. This is made worse in the ​latest Revision, called the Revised Standard Version, where the word used is "expiation.” Why?
However, we find that other translators were not satisfied with rendering Hilasterion as "propitiation” or "expiation." Weymouth translates it truly as "mercy seat.” Fenton also as "mercy seat.” The XX Century as "a means of reconciliation." Ronald Knox likewise as "a means of reconciliation." Goodspeed as "a sacrifice of reconciliation.”
The original idea of the mercy seat in the Tabernacle, placed above the Two Tables of Stone whereon were inscribed the Ten Commandments, was the Divine dwelling place, and thereby is represented the throne of God in the Tabernacle where He would hear prayer and from which He would speak words of comfort. The golden lid of the Ark of the Covenant was evidently intended to picture the seat of God in His attitude of mercy toward the human race. This seat of gold was made suggestive of the overshadowing Presence of God by golden cherubim, one on either side, whose outstretched wings extended over the mercy seat.
The Law was necessary for man's welfare, covering the principles according to which man must live in order to receive heavenly blessing, but by the mercy seat was represented God as the All-Merciful, manifesting the infinite love of God. It did not suggest Jesus in a pleading attitude to God, or His death on the cross as an expiation to God, but God's merciful attitude to man, thus not propitiation, or expiation but the perpetual Divine Mercy, His mercy even in man's failure to keep the Law.
We thus get the idea of Paul in writing, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them."
Not only in this instance, but everywhere else, the Bible was translated by men affected by the point of view of St, Anselm. They could not see God except as an Avenger of violated law, angry with the wicked and determined to punish them to eternity for breaking Law. It was the idea of legal satisfaction. They did not realize—perhaps did not even think about it—that the punishment for the violation of law is not from God, but the result which follows from that ​violation, as inevitable as the suffering which follows when one thrusts his hand into the fire.
Thus by this translation the mercy seat was made to be—a truly heathenish idea—man's need to propitiate Inexorable Justice by expiation for the sin of Adam and for his own failure to live according to the laws of life.
The basic idea of the Mercy Seat is that Jesus is the manifestation of the divine mercy for our waywardness, or missing the mark. Jesus is not the expiation of our sins to another Deity who demands our death. But God coming forth to view in mercy in order to beg men to come back to their Heavenly Father's home and happiness, If it were not so, why was the word "mercy" used? Thus by the "mercy seat"
God appears in Jesus as Mercy Itself, supplicating men to come into heavenly order, Jesus was thus the Mercy Seat, not as the Supplicator to another Divine Being, or as the Expiation for man's sins, but as representing Gods effort to rescue men from their enemies of the underworld, indeed as God pleading with men, a perpetual Saviour of the human race, the supreme expression of the Divine mercy.
There are two other passages in the New Testament in the Authorized Version where "propitiation" is used, and "expiation" in the Revised Standard Version— the most recent. These passages are 1 John 2:2 and 4:10. The first one reads: "And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." To many minds this proves the truth of the Plan of Salvation. Let us examine it.
The Greek word here used in the original is Hilasmos, of kindred origin with Hilasterion, from the same root word Hileos, meaning primarily "mercy," or "to be merciful." Translating Hilasmos as "propitiation" or "expiation" emphasizes the work of Jesus as Expiation rather than as Conciliation. Why not follow the true meaning of Mercy and render it as expressing God's desire to be merciful, not by demanding death for sin, but as His desire for reconciliation with man? Render it, for example, as, "He is the reconciliation for our sins?" This would conform to Paul's suggestion of God's desire to have us reconciled to Him.
​With the translators of the Bible imbued with the idea of the truth of the Plan of Salvation as developed by the reasoning of St. Anselm, it was almost inevitable that they should have projected his idea into their translations. Almost inevitable also that those who read those translations should see his idea as Divinely placed in the Word of God: indeed, as the true idea of the Word of God.
Men forget that Jesus in His teachings was not preaching the wrath of God, or Eternal Vindication of violated law, but the love of God in seeking men to save them from themselves, and from their cruel enemies of hell, "For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost." Jesus in the Parables never suggests that men are saved by the acceptance of a dogma— or by substitution of the innocent for the guilty. Instead in the parable of the House upon the Rock He shows men the imperative need to base their lives upon the keeping of His commandments of love—"Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them." He did not even remotely suggest the Plan of Salvation.
In the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, who were they who inherited the kingdom? Those who claimed Salvation through Faith Alone and the blood of Jesus? Or those who lived in love to others? Not there or in the other parables did He suggest salvation by the Plan of Salvation. The Plan of Salvation is a human deduction based upon a human theory, but it has proved deadly in its effect in showing men that their living has nothing whatever to do with entering heaven hereafter.
When therefore we read In the New Testament that Jesus was the propitiation for our sins, let us remember that He was the coming forth of God Himself to bring men back to Himself, forgiving and forgetting their waywardness even more truly than the Father of the Prodigal Son forgave his son.
Take the word "atonement." Its obvious meaning in English is at-one-ment, compounded of three words, "at" and "one" and "ment," to become at one, or of one mind with God. It has been changed by usage in connection with the Plan of Salvation to mean "expiation or "propitiation." If means—in its original form— basic agreement of one person with another through adjustment in love and thought. ​The word written without separating the three separate parts of which it is composed—or as "atonement instead of "at-one-ment"— has come to mean definitely expiation. This has to come to pass because of the ideas of the Plan of Salvation worked into it so as to fix its original meaning as "expiation."
In Hebrew the word is from a primitive root "to cover." Its meaning is to "cover" either by "expiation" or by "appeasement" but also and chiefly "to forgive," "pardon," "disannul," "be merciful," "reconcile." Its usage as either "expiation or "to be merciful," depends upon one's ideas of God as Vengeance or Love. In Greek the word is Katallage, occurring in Romans 5:11 as "atonement," meaning from the lexicon "adjustment," "restoration to Divine favor."
The word is from Katallazo, meaning "to change mutually," "compound a difference," "reconcile." This shows that the correct word in English is "at-one-ment" and not "atonement."
People have come to think of the animal sacrifices mentioned in the Old Testament as means of expiating sins, just as the heathen thought of them, but actually they symbolize the offering up to the Lord by means of the innocent animals of sincere love and by the meal offerings of true thoughts. This symbolization represented true worship. The Lord permitted them only to save the Israelites from idolatry. His true attitude toward animal sacrifice is shown by such statements as this in Isaiah: "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord, I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? . . . Your hands are full of blood. Wash you; make you clean put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well." And He tells them that if they will put away the evil of their doings from before the Lord, "though their sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." This result comes, not from expiation, or an atonement, but by at-one-ment arrived at by a changed life where evil is forever put away. To use the word " ​atonement" is to pervert the meaning of Scripture. The word "at-one-ment"—to come into oneness by means of repentance and reform—alone conveys the true idea of the Bible.
The elaborate symbolism of the great Day of At-one-ment obviously pictures sorrow for sin, sincere repentance and promise of reform. For that it was given, to have men turn from their evil ways, and so become at-one with God. But many doubtless held to the low ideal of heathendom that God could be placated only by blood atonement and expiation.
But why take that idealism into the Christian religion and make it the supreme condition of eternal life as is done by means of the Plan of Salvation? The Lord throughout the history of Israel showed them that what He desired was life according to the Ten Commandments. In Micah He sums up religion—after rejecting animal sacrifice forever—as justice, mercy and humility. And yet in the Plan of Salvation the murder of the Son of God is made to constitute the Christian religion itself. Its adherents claim that no one can get into heaven except by "faith in the shed blood of Christ"—thus by acceptance of Jesus' death as expiation, and this as the only condition of admission!
Jesus reminded the Jews that Deity did not require expiation and atonement, but desired instead to extend mercy,—"If ye had known what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." The reference was to Hosea, "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." Does not this show that the idea of expiation behind the Plan of Salvation is man-derived and contrary to the Divine idea and nature? And yet the ideas of the Plan of Salvation are written by translators into many scriptures, so that one reading those passages sees only the suggestion of an expiation, as manifestly as any heathen idea of religion by propitiation of their deities. From a thousand pulpits we hear that we are saved only by "the shed blood of Christ," and that our works have nothing to do with our salvation, whereas Jesus said, "Wherefore by their fruits—or works—ye shall know them." "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."