Difference between revisions of "Atonement"

<p> Although found only once in the NT (&nbsp;Romans 5:11) and there in the Authorized Versionalone, this word has become the elect symbol in theological thought to indicate the doctrine in the [[Apostolic]] Church which placed the death of Christ in some form of causative connexion with the forgiveness of sins and with the restoration of men to favour and fellowship with God. The development of a doctrine of atonement in the NT is almost entirely the product of the experience and thought of the Apostolic Church. It moved along two lines; these were neither divergent nor exactly parallel, nor is it probable that one was precisely supplementary to the other; they are best considered as converging towards an ultimate point of unity in which [[Godward]] and manward aspects are merged. They have been contrasted as objective and subjective, juridical and ethical, substitutionary and mystical. They correspond also to two definitions of the word itself. Originally and etymologically the word means ‘at-one-ment’; it is a synonym for ‘reconciliation’ as an accomplished fact. Historically its usage signifies ‘a satisfaction or reparation made by giving an equivalent for an injury, or by doing or suffering that which is received in satisfaction for an offence or injury’ ( <i> Imperial Dict., s.v </i> .). Here its synonym is ‘expiation’ as a means to reconciliation. Theologically it has been chiefly used in this latter sense, to indicate ‘the expiation made by the obedience and suffering death of Christ to mark the relation of God to sin in the processes of human redemption.’ A decided modern tendency is to return to the more original use of the word. It will probably be seen that both uses are required to state the fullness of the apostolic doctrine. </p> <p> The literature preserved in the NT witnesses to the undoubted fact that the Apostolic Church had very early established a close connexion between the death of Jesus the [[Messiah]] and the redemption of men from their sins. Within seven years of His death-or probably considerably less-a ‘doctrine of the cross’ was freely and authoritatively preached in the [[Christian]] community; it appears to have been distinctly [[Pauline]] in general character; it held a primary place in the apostolic preaching; it was declared to be the fulfilment of the OT Scripture; it was set forth as the essence of the gospel, and was definitely referred to the teaching of Jesus for its ultimate authority. This much seems to be implied in what is probably the earliest testimony, if regard be had to the date of the writings in which it occurs, concerning the apostolic doctrine of the atonement. It is St. Paul’s confident assertion, ‘I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received, bow that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures’ (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:3). This is undoubtedly typical of the teaching accepted by the primitive Church; whatever St. Paul’s differences with other apostolic teachers on other matters may have been, agreement seems to be found here. The confidence of this common witness so early in the Apostolic Church raises many interesting questions, some of which must be considered. To what extent can we find the more elaborate Pauline doctrine, which we shall find elsewhere in his writings, presented in such fragments of the teaching of the first [[Christians]] as we possess? How far is the apostolic interpretation of Christ’s death sustained by appeal to the experience and teaching of Jesus Himself? By what means had the swift transition been made by the apostolic teachers themselves from the state of mind concerning the death of Jesus which is presented in the Synoptic [[Gospels]] to the beliefs exhibited in their preaching in the Acts? How was the unconcealed dismay of a bewildering disappointment changed into a glorying? It is clear from the contents of the Synoptic Gospels that, whatever the confusion and distress in the minds of His disciples which immediately followed the death of Christ, they were already in possession of memories of His teaching which lay comparatively dormant until they were awakened into vigorous activity by subsequent events and experiences; these, together with the facts of their Lord’s life and the incidents of His death, may be spoken of as the sources of the apostolic doctrine of the atonement, as to its substance. For the forms into which it was cast we must look to the religious conceptions-legal, sacrificial, ethical, and eschatological-which constituted their world of theological ideas, and the background against which was set the teaching of Jesus. </p> <p> I. <i> Sources </i> </p> <p> <b> 1. In the Synoptic Gospels. </b> -Briefly summarized these are: (1) The intense and consistent ethical interpretation that Jesus gave to the [[Kingdom]] He came to establish, and to the conception of the salvation He taught and promised as the sign of its establishment in the individual soul and in the social order. It was no mere change of status; it was a becoming in ethical and spiritual character sons of God in likeness and obedience; it was actual release from the selfishness of the unfilial and unbrotherly life, and access into living communion in holy love with His God and Father. </p> <p> (2) The [[Baptism]] and the [[Temptation]] of Jesus, which initiated Him into the course of His public ministry, were events associated in the minds of those who preserved the Synoptic tradition with the voice from heaven, ‘Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased’ (&nbsp;Luke 3:22). Apparently the consciousness of Jesus as He realized His vocation, judging from what He afterwards taught His disciples of its inner meaning, was aware of this combination of &nbsp;Psalms 2:7 with &nbsp;Isaiah 42:1 ff.-the Son of God as King, and the Buffering [[Servant]] of the Lord. The inference Denney draws, though obviously open to keen criticism from the eschatological school, has a suggestive value: the Messianic consciousness of Jesus from the beginning was one with the consciousness of the suffering Servant; He combined kingship and service in suffering from the first.*[Note: Death of Christ, 14 f.]This finds support in the accounts of the Temptation, which was supremely a temptation to avoid suffering by choosing the easy way. </p> <p> (3) All the Synoptics assure us that, when Jesus received the first full recognition of Messiahship from His disciples, He instantly met it by the open confession that His suffering and death were a necessity. ‘The Son of Man <i> must </i> (δεῖ) suffer- <i> must </i> go up to [[Jerusalem]] and be killed’ (&nbsp;Mark 8:31, &nbsp;Matthew 16:21, &nbsp;Luke 9:22). [[Henceforth]] His constant subject of instruction was concerning His death, which, when ‘the Son of Man was risen from the dead, His disciples were to interpret. The necessity associated with His death was not merely the inevitable sequence of His loyalty to His ideal of righteousness in face of the opposition of His enemies. It was that, but it was more. In the career of one such as Jesus the violent and unjust death to which He was moving could not be separated in thought from the Father’s will to which He was so exquisitely sensitive, and which He came perfectly to fulfil. What was in His Father’s will was appointed and could not be the mere drift of circumstances into which He was cast and from which the [[Divine]] purpose was absent. The necessity was inward, and identical with the will of God as expressed in Scripture; to His disciples it was incomprehensible. </p> <p> (4) Jesus described His death as for others and as voluntarily endured. Definite terms are selected in. which the meaning more than the fact of the death is set forth. ‘The Son of Man came … to minister, and to give his fife a ransom (λύτρον) for many’ (&nbsp;Mark 10:45). Whether we approach the meaning of this term (see Ransom) from Christ’s conception of His life-work as a whole, or by closer exegetical or historical study of the word itself, it is clear that the giving of His life was to Jesus much more than the normal experience of dying; it was a dying which was to issue in largeness and freedom of life for mankind-it was probably even more than ‘on behalf of,’ ‘in the service of’; it was ‘instead of’ (ἀντί) men. From what He is to release them, however, is not definitely stated. The objection often made that the term is an indication of Pauline influence on Mark is part of the general problem of Paulinism in the Gospels, too large for discussion here. The saying is in perfect harmony with its setting. </p> <p> (5) The other selected term is connected with the critically difficult passages recording the institution of the Supper. ‘This is my blood of the covenant [possibly the ‘new’ covenant] which is shed for many unto remission of sins’ (&nbsp;Matthew 26:28). Here the purpose or ground of the death of Jesus is set forth. It is only just to say that Matthew alone makes the reference to ‘remission of sins.’ The earliest account of the Supper-St. Paul’s (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:23-26)-omits this reference; he is followed by Mark and Luke. [[Questions]] also turn on the sacrificial significance of ‘blood of the covenant.’ The reference is obviously to the solemn ratification by blood-sprinkling of the covenant of [[Sinai]] (&nbsp;Exodus 24:8). Whether this was strictly sacrificial blood with expiatory value is debated. Robertson Smith*[Note: Sem.2, London, 1894, p. 319 f.]and Driver†[Note: HDB, art. ‘Propitiation,’ iv. 132.]may both be quoted in favour of the view that ‘sacrificial blood was universally associated with propitiatory power.’‡[Note: Denney, Death of Christ, 53.]Whilst too much should not be built upon a single authority for the precise word of Jesus, the criticism does not touch the value of the citation as an index to the mind of the Apostolic Church. </p> <p> (6) The awful isolation of the cry of Jesus on the cross, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (&nbsp;Mark 15:34) cannot easily be separated in the experience of the sinless Son of Cod from some mysterious connexion with the sin He clearly came to deal with by His death. It is at least capable of the suggestion that for a time His consciousness had lost the sense of God’s presence, whose unbroken continuity had hitherto been the ethical and spiritual certainty of His spirit. </p> <p> To complete the material provided for the apostolic doctrine in the Synoptics there should be added to the points already mentioned the minuteness and wealth of detail-quite without parallel in the presentation of other important features of His life-with which the death of Jesus is recorded, and also the extent to which the writers insist upon the event as a fulfilment of the OT [[Scriptures]] We have, therefore, in the Synoptics, whatever view may be taken of the position largely held, that they were the issue of ‘the productive activity’ of the early Church under the stimulating influence of redemptive experiences attributed to the death of Christ, at least the starting-point of the ethical and juridical views of the atonement subsequently developed in the primitive community; they lack doctrinal definiteness, and distinctly favour the ethical more than the legal view of the process of redemption; they are also accompanied by evidences that the disciples listened unintelligently or with reluctant acquiescence to the words of Jesus concerning His death. This last feature indicates the dependence of the apostolic doctrine upon another source. </p> <p> <b> 2. The apostolic experience. </b> -The doctrine of atonement arose out of the Christian experience; it was the issue of a new religious feeling rather than a condition of faith. The springs of tins new spiritual emotion must be sought, if the doctrine which is its result in the Apostolic Church is to be rightly appreciated. In this way also we shall provide a statement of the transition from the desolation wrought by the death of Jesus in the hopes of His followers to the triumphant temper and abounding joy of the primitive faith and preaching. The elements of this experience are: </p> <p> (1) <i> The [[Resurrection]] </i> .-This is the starting-point of the new experience; the ultimate root of the apostolic doctrine of atonement was the presence of the [[Risen]] Christ in the consciousness of the primitive Christian community; for it was the secret of the restoration and enrichment of personal faith, the re-creation of the corporate confidence of the community which ‘was begotten again unto a, living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead’ (&nbsp;1 Peter 1:3). It was also the revealing light that brought meaning into the mystery of His death. Now and for always these two-death and resurrection-stood together. When the apostles stated the one, they implied the other; the Resurrection was the great theme of the apostolic preaching because it interpreted the significance of the Death. Both were closely and instinctively connected with the forgiveness of sins: ‘The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him upon a tree. Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to [[Israel]] and remission of sins’ (&nbsp;Acts 5:30 f.). The redeeming virtue issues from the Death and Resurrection as from a common source, though the cross ultimately became its chosen symbol. Beginning to search the Scriptures to discover whether death had a place in the prophetic presentation of the Messiah, the disciples were surprised into the apprehension of the meaning of the words of Jesus spoken whilst He was yet with them; they thus came to see that the Death was only the shadow side of an experience by which He passed to the exaltation and authority of His redeeming work; the catastrophe was seen to have a place in the moral order of God, and the scandal of the cross was transfigured into the glory of the Divine purpose of redemption. This experience was followed by- </p> <p> (2) <i> The Great [[Commission]] </i> .-The terms of this are influential for discerning the apostolic doctrine. As they appear in Mt. (&nbsp;Matthew 28:19 f.) and in Mk. (&nbsp;Mark 16:15 f.) associated with baptism, which in the primitive Church was always connected with remission of sins, they are suggestive, but not free from critical difficulties. As they appear in Lk. (&nbsp;Luke 24:44 ff.). from an excellent source, they have their chief significance’ they are there bound up with ‘my words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you’; with the fulfilling of the Scriptures concerning the necessity that ‘the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name’; and especially with the opening of the minds of those who were to be ‘witnesses of these things’ that they might understand them. The historicity of this as conveying the experience and convictions of the Apostolic Church is strong, and it affords exactly the link needed to unite what we find in the Synoptics with what appears as preaching and teaching in the primitive society. The illumination of the apostolic mind for its construction of a doctrine of atonement resulting from the Resurrection and the Great Commission was perfected by the experiences of- </p> <p> (3) <i> [[Pentecost]] </i> .-The coming to abide with them of the [[Holy]] Spirit, ‘the promise of the Father’ (&nbsp;Acts 1:4), ‘the Spirit of Christ,’ was for the Apostolic Church the ultimate certainty of guidance into all the truth, and the supreme authority for its adequate utterance. The work of the Spirit as Jesus had defined it was; ‘He shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you’ (&nbsp;John 16:14). To the fullness of His ministry the Apostolic Church owed the interpretation of the cross, the inspiration of its preaching, the construction of its doctrine, and especially the moral and spiritual results in the life of the individual and of the community which were the living verification of its power, and also the justification of the moral grounds on which the declaration and experience of remission of sins were based. The meaning of the words of Jesus is understood through the works of His Spirit; the significance of His death can be apprehended only in the light of the experience it creates. Only so can an adequate soteriology be reached. From first to last the apostolic doctrine of the atonement is the effort to interpret this experience in the relations in which it was conceived to stand to the Christian conceptions of God and man. </p> <p> II. <i> The doctrine preached </i> </p> <p> <b> 1. In the Acts of the Apostles. </b> -The early chapters of the Acts contain the one particular account of the earliest form the doctrine of atonement took in the Apostolic Church; for it is generally admitted that some source of considerable value underlies the speeches of Peter. Both their christology and soteriology are primitive in type-it is surely not the doctrine of the 2nd century. In this account the sufferings and death of Jesus the Messiah have a fundamental place. The cross is now more than a scandal; the ‘word of the cross’ is more than an apologetic device for getting over the difficulties of accepting a crucified Messiah. Although the great feature of the apostolic preaching is not the explanation of the death of Christ in relation to the remission of sins, but its power in spiritual renewal, it contains much which enables us to perceive how the primitive community was taught to regard it. Summarized, this is-(1) The death of Christ was a Divine necessity, appointed by God’s counsel and foreknowledge It was a crime whose issue God thwarted for His redeeming purpose (&nbsp;Acts 2:23; &nbsp;Acts 3:18).-(2) Jesus as the Messiah is identified with the suffering Servant of the Lord (&nbsp;Acts 4:27; &nbsp;Acts 8:32-35). This conception, abhorrent to the [[Jewish]] mind and a sufficient ground for rejecting the Messianic claims of Jesus, is the assertion of the vicarious principle of the righteous one suffering for the unrighteous many and also the sign of a Divine fellowship.-(3) The great gift of the gospel-remission of sins-is set in direct relation to the crucified Jesus (&nbsp;Acts 2:38; &nbsp;Acts 3:19; &nbsp;Acts 5:31; &nbsp;Acts 10:43). The prominence given to this in every sermon suggests that this connexion cannot be considered accidental.-(4) Reference to the frequent observance of the Lord’s Supper (&nbsp;Acts 2:42). When it is remembered that nothing in the Apostolic Church is more primitive than the sacraments, and that both of them bear implications of Christ’s relation to the remission of sins, this reference is significant.-(5) Christ’s death is not distinctly represented as the ground of forgiveness, by setting forth the Messiah’s death as a satisfaction for sin or as a substitute for sin’s penalty. It is set forth as a motive to repentance and a means of turning men away from sin, but its saving value is not more closely defined. It is certain, however, that the early Apostolic Church attached a saving significance to the death of Christ. </p> <p> <b> 2. In 1 Peter. </b> -It is usual to associate with the indications of the doctrine in the early chapters of Acts the constructive tendencies found in 1 Peter. The [[Epistle]] of James is too uncertain in its date and authority, and its aim is too purely practical to warrant appeal to it on the apostolic doctrine of atonement. Indeed 1 Peter is far from being free from difficulty when used for this purpose. The signs of Pauline influence are too strong for its use as a source of primitive Christian ideas without some hesitation. Still, the fact that St. Paul and St. Peter are represented as in harmony on the significance of the redemptive work of Christ, when they are manifestly at variance in other important factors of the primitive faith, is not without its value; it is possible also that their similarities may be accounted for by their common loyalty to the accepted Christian tradition. Taken as it stands, St. Peter’s contribution may be epitomized thus: (1) [[Whilst]] the suffering death of Christ holds, as elsewhere in apostolic writings, the central place, its strongest appeal is made in regard to the moral quality of the sufferings. The patience and innocence of the Sufferer for righteousness’ sake control its theological presentation. The exhortation to suffer with Christ by expressing His spirit in the life of discipleship obviously emphasizes the ethical appeal of His example, but this is based upon a due appreciation of His sufferings on our behalf. [[Quite]] a procession of theological ideas thus emerges.-(2) The covenant idea with its sacrificial implication in ‘sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ’ is present (&nbsp;1 Peter 1:2), possibly reminiscent of the words at the Supper.-(3) [[Ransomed]] ‘with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ’ (&nbsp;1 Peter 1:19), combines the idea of the sacrificial lamb with possibly an echo of the ‘ransom’ of &nbsp;Mark 10:45.-(4) The close connexion of Christ who ‘suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps, and its ethical appeal, with the clear interpretation of the [[Passion]] as a sin-bearing, ‘who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree’ (&nbsp;1 Peter 2:24), and its profound moral issues, ‘that we having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed’-shows how intimately what are termed the objective and subjective conceptions of the atonement are associated in the writer’s thought; the end is moral and dominates the means, but the means are clearly substitutionary, to the extent that the obligations to righteousness involved in ‘our sins’ are assumed by the sinless Lamb of God.-(5) The writer once again glides with simple ease and familiarity from the force of the example of Christ to the abiding fact of His sin-bearing (&nbsp;1 Peter 3:18): ‘Because Christ also suffered for sins once (ἅπαξ, ‘once fur all’), the righteous for (ὑπέρ) the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God.) [[Access]] to God is regarded as a high privilege obtained by a great self-surrender and not as a native right to be taken for granted. Of course these ideas, which the writer of 1 Peter discusses in this apparently incidental way, are closely akin to those of the righteousness by faith and ethical obedience ‘in Christ’ which St. Paul discusses so fully and of set purpose in Romans 3, 6 respectively, and this may suggest his influence. If so, then the evidence of 1 Peter will fall into the Later Pauline period of apostolic doctrine, which we shall now consider at length; but that would not depreciate its value as a witness to the faith of the Apostolic Church in its wider range. </p> <p> III. <i> The doctrine developed </i> </p> <p> <b> 1. The Pauline type. </b> -It will be obvious to any reader of the literature of the Apostolic Church that its doctrine of atonement was the subject of considerable development in form. In tracing this the Pauline writings must be our main source. Of all NT writers, St. Paul goes into the greatest detail and has most deliberately and continually reflected upon this subject. Indeed, the abundance of the material he provides is embarrassing to any one seeking a unified doctrine. In St. Paul we find for the first time a philosophy of the death of Christ in relation to the forgiveness of sins, which is ultimately based upon an analysis of the Divine attributes and their place in the interpretation of the doctrine of the cross. At the same time the emphasis he lays upon this is regarded by him as in accordance with the belief and teaching of the primitive community; it is the centre of his gospel and theirs. It may be assumed, therefore, that we are as likely to learn from him as from any other source what was the inner meaning of the primitive Christian belief. He declared that what he preached concerning the dying of Christ for our sins according to the Scriptures he ‘received’ (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:3). Whilst it is possible that this statement finds a fuller definition in his further assertion, ‘Neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ’ (&nbsp;Galatians 1:12), it seems clear that St. Paul’s doctrine rested upon the common apostolic data given in (1) the words of Jesus respecting the necessity of His death on man’s behalf; (2) the very early Christian idea that it was included in the Divine purpose; (3) the conception of the vicarious sufferings of the righteous and their merit founded on Is 53 which had been elaborated in later Jewish thought.*[Note: Stevens, Christian [[Doctrine]] of Salvation, 59, 122.]Although it seems clear that this late Jewish doctrine was a source of St. Paul’s theory, it underwent partial transformation at his hands; it was ethicized; moreover, it was probably the vicarious idea, as it was associated with the prophetic rather than with the priestly or legal conceptions, that he appropriated; it was not the literal legal substitution and transfer, but the vicariousness of a real experience in which the righteous bear upon their hearts the woes and sins of the sinful.†[Note: G. A. Smith, Mod. Crit. and [[Preaching]] of OT, London, 1901, p. 120 ff.] </p> <p> (1) <i> St. Paul’s early preaching </i> .-The earliest Indication of St. Paul’s view of atonement would naturally be sought in his preaching during the fifteen or more years before he wrote the letters in which he sets forth more deliberately and with obvious carefulness his matured doctrinal judgments. The author of the Acts gives little light on St. Paul’s method of setting out his interpretation of the death of Christ in his discourses; how he was accustomed to place it in relation to forgiveness of sin in his earliest preaching does not definitely appear. The discourse at [[Antioch]] in [[Pisidia]] may illustrate the character of his reference to it: ‘through this man is preached unto you forgiveness of sins’ (&nbsp;Acts 13:38); but nothing is defined more closely. To the [[Ephesian]] elders at [[Miletus]] be speaks about ‘the Church of God, which he purchased with his own blood’ (&nbsp;Acts 20:28). St. Paul himself gives us the only valuable account of his preaching, its dominant topic was the crucifixion-‘the preaching of the cross’ (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:18); ‘I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified’ (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 2:2). No explanation is given. But the fact that he made the cross supreme when it was regarded as a direct antagonism and provocative by those he sought to win-a scandal to [[Jews]] and foolishness to the Gentiles-implies that it was associated with an interpretation that made it something different from a martyrdom. Such a martyrdom neither Jew nor Greek would have regarded with the scorn they exhibited for the interpretation St. Paul gave them in order to meet their challenge for explanation. </p> <p> (2) <i> The Pauline [[Epistles]] </i> .-On the whole, St. Paul’s preaching carries us no further towards a knowledge of any reasoned doctrine of atonement than the position reached in the preaching of his fellow-apostles-that ‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.’ Of course this is in itself a vast doctrinal implication. Still, for the structure of the Pauline doctrine we are shut up to his teaching in his Epistles. In his earliest writings-the [[Thessalonian]] Epistles.-we practically get no further towards his doctrine than in his preaching, except perhaps that the idea emerges that in some way Christ identifies Himself with our evil that He may identify us with Himself in His own good (&nbsp;1 Thessalonians 5:9 f.). We meet the organized body of his doctrine in the well-authenticated group of his writings to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, with a supplementary view in the Imprisonment. Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. We may differentiate this teaching, but it has throughout most important underlying principles in common. It falls conveniently into five divisions-Atonement and Law; [[Atonement]] and Righteousness; Atonement and Personality; Atonement and [[Newness]] of Life; Atonement and the Universe. In briefly reviewing these, it should be remembered that according to St. Paul the love of God is the first arid last motive of redemption, and that none of the atoning processes is separable from the full activities of the Divine Personality. </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) <i> Atonement and Law </i> .-This is the form in which St. Paul construes his doctrine in the [[Galatian]] I Epistle, which deals more exclusively than any other NT document with the significance of the death of Christ. ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for (ὑπέρ) us; for it is written, [[Cursed]] is every one that hangeth upon a tree’ (&nbsp;Galatians 3:13). The conception here is distinctly juridical; whether it is also penal will depend upon the definition of ‘penal.’ If punishment implies guilt, the sufferings of Christ were not. strictly penal, for He is always set forth as guiltless; moreover, guilt cannot be transferred as guilt. His sufferings did, in St. Paul’s judgment, serve the end of punishment: they were representatively penal; Christ took the place of the guilty as far as it involved penal consequences; for special emphasis is laid upon the instrument of death-the cross-and upon its curse, though there seems nothing to justify the attributing to Christ of the position suggested by the allusion to &nbsp;Deuteronomy 21:23 of one ‘accursed of God’ which has at times been pressed by expositors. That He endured the consequences of such a position and in this sense was ‘made a curse on our behalf’ is the Apostle’s application of it. This endurance is regarded as the recognition of the just requirement of the law of God-not the ceremonial law alone, but also the moral demands arising out of God’s holy and righteous nature, and especially those which empirically St. Paul had put to tine test in vain in his seeking after personal righteousness. St. Paul does not deny the authority of this law; he asserts it, but the fact that it was added to the promise for ‘the sake of transgression’ resulted in its making men sinful; it brought a curse: ‘Cursed is every one which continued, not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them’ (&nbsp;Galatians 3:10). With this curse in its consequences Christ identifies Himself, as in the Apostle’s thought He had identified Himself with mankind in being ‘born of a woman, born under the law’ (&nbsp;Galatians 4:4). By thus making Himself absolutely one with those under ban, absorbing into Himself all that it meant, He removed the obstacle to forgiveness in the righteous attitude of God towards sin which could not be overcome until sin had been virtually punished. It was thus that the way was opened for man to identify himself by personal faith and living experience with Christ’s death, so that St. Paul was justified in saying: ‘For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ: yet I live: and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me’ (&nbsp;Galatians 2:19 f.) </p> <p> This conception of St. Paul’s adds the ethical idea of atonement to the juridical, which other passages reiterate (&nbsp;Galatians 5:24; &nbsp;Galatians 6:14). It is, however, essentially Pauline to regard the ethical as depending for its possibility and efficacy in experience upon the juridical; otherwise ‘Christ died for nought.’ God must vindicate His law so that He may justly forgive; the operation of grace is connected with the assertion of justice. But ultimately St. Paul’s conception really transcends these contrasts; for it is God Himself who in His love provides the way to be both just and gracious; He, not another, provides the satisfaction. In the last analysis God is presented as removing His own obstacles to forgiveness; the death in which His righteous law is exhibited is the provision of His antecedent love; the commending of His love is the prior purpose resulting in Christ being ‘made a curse on our behalf.’*[Note: P. Wernle, Anfänge unserer Religion, Tübingen, 1901, p. 146; Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation, 67.]Consequently the whole Christian life is resolved into a response to God’s love exhibited in the death of His Son; it does away with the hindrance to forgiveness in God’s law, and at the same time inspires the faith which conducts into ethical conformity to Christ in man’s experience. </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) <i> Atonement and [[Righteousness]] </i> .-This is dealt with exhaustively in the Epistle to the Romans; the great question the Epistle discusses is-How shall a sinful man be righteous with God? and the answer is-By receiving ‘a righteousness of God’ which is ‘revealed from faith to faith.’ In the interpretation of this answer we reach the heart of the apostolic doctrine, and upon it the great bulk of later historical discussions has turned. For more than the briefest hints here given of the points of exegesis involved, reference should be made to commentaries on the Epistle. St. Paul distinctly states the two aides of the meaning of atonement referred to in the beginning of this article. But his interest is primarily absorbed by the efficient cause of at-one-ment as the ideal end, viz. the atonement, the Divine provision of the satisfaction which the Divine righteousness requires to be exhibited in order that forgiveness of sins may be bestowed and a restoration of fellowship between God and man achieved. To this he devotes his utmost strength; he regards it as primary in the order of thought as well as in the redemptive process. Still he is nobly loyal to both conceptions, if, indeed, they were for him really two; for he thinks of the unity of the process with the end as exhibiting the perfectness of the Divine purpose of grace. This point will be discussed later. Meanwhile it must be pointed out that the strong divergencies revealed in the interpretation of the apostolic doctrine have frequently resulted from regarding one or other of these phases of the Pauline doctrine as in itself adequate to explain the whole. Ethical theories have sought to ignore the juridical means; juridical theories have often stopped short of the ethical end. The Pauline doctrine does neither. Both are met in the conception, essential to his doctrine, of the ideal and actual identification of Christ with man in his sin, and of man with Christ in newness of life; and also in the identification of both with God in His unchanging righteousness and in His eternal love; for St. Paul with ceaseless loyalty carries all the processes of redemption in time up to the initiative and executive of the Divine purpose. </p> <p> Righteousness is the starting-point of his discussion; it, is seen in ‘the wrath of God revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men’ (&nbsp;Romans 1:18). Cod can never be at peace with sin. Law brings no righteousness; ‘by the law is the knowledge of sin’ (&nbsp;Romans 3:20). All have sinned; not one is righteous; the necessity for a righteousness apart from the law is obvious. The provision of this, ‘even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe’ (&nbsp;Romans 3:22), is the Divine atonement. This implies, of course, in its completion a great moral and spiritual change in the nature and character of those who ‘have received the atonement’; that end does not jet receive St. Paul’s attention; his mind is preoccupied with the means. He is not even at present intent on demonstrating the necessity of this ethical transformation; he is in subjection to the arresting fact that all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men was exposed to the Divine wrath, and is constrained to show how the wrath was withheld. This was not primarily to be sought in the measure in winch men might be arrested by the fact and cease to sin; they must and would do that in proportion as they received the atonement. But for the time being St. Paul is confining his thought entirely to the ‘objective’ work of Christ in the atonement, whereby was provided and set forth the means by which the ‘subjective’ work of Christ in personal union with the believing soul might be possible; indeed, in some respects it had been actual also in the past, for sins had already been remitted by God. ‘Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood, to show his righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, 1 say, of his righteousness at this present season; that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus’ (&nbsp;Romans 3:24 ff.). </p> <p> Thus St. Paul conceived the method of deliverance from the wrath of God which was inevitable in the presence of unrighteousness; it is an objective work and is in response to faith, however full of personal renewal in righteousness its ethical implications may eventually become; for the destruction of sin and the gift of life are regarded as depending upon a free bestowal on sinners of a righteousness of God. The interpretation of this crucial passage and its context depends upon the meaning assigned to the terms ‘righteousness of God’ and propitiation.’ The idea expressed in the former term occupies the central place in St. Paul’s conception of atonement. Righteousness was his passion; its quest the <i> summum bonum </i> of his life; ‘he had sought it long in vain, and when at length he found it he gave to it a name expressive of its infinite worth to his heart: the righteousness of <i> God </i> .’*[Note: Bruce, St. Paul’s [[Conception]] of Christianity, 146.]To this title-‘a righteousness of God’-he firmly adheres; it is distinctive; to him it is something belonging to the Christian man, yet it is not his personal righteousness of character; he receives it. It also belongs to God, but it is not His personal righteousness which is imparted to the believer. St. Paul’s conception of it does not occur in the Gospels, where the term stands for the righteousness of which God is the centre, which is His essential attribute. The nearest approach to the Pauline sense in the teaching of Jesus is the grace of God in the free pardon of sin. In St. Paul, righteousness is a ‘gift’ from God to him who believes in Christ. He is dealt with as righteous. To regard the righteousness of God as essentially self-imparting, taking hold of human lives and filling them with its Divine energies, without any reference to the problem sin has created, is not Pauline. To St. Paul, as well as to all NT teaching, God’s righteousness was the affluent, overflowing source of all the goodness in the world, but he felt that sin made a difference to God; it was sin against His righteousness; and His righteousness had to be vindicated against it; it could not ignore it. </p> <p> Any view which failed to appreciate this problem would miss the characteristic solution that St. Paul unceasingly presents in the ‘propitiation’ in the blood of Christ, ‘whom God had set forth to show his righteousness in passing over sins done aforetime. Ritschl’s view, that always in St. Paul the righteousness of God means the mode of procedure which is consistent with God’s having the salvation of believers as His end,*[Note: Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, ii. 117.]overlooks the emphatic contention of the Apostle, that it is the ungodly to whom God is gracious rather than the faithful within the covenant privilege; this latter is the class referred to in the Psalms and Second Isaiah, to whom God exhibited His righteousness in presence of the wrongs done them by their enemies. Ritschl’s conception is an attractive presentation of the meaning of the term in other relations, but it is irrelevant to St. Paul’s distinctive meaning. The suggestive view of the term expounded by Seeberg in <i> Der Tod [[Christi]] </i> , that the righteousness of God means simply His moral activity to harmony with His true character, the norm of which is that He should institute and maintain fellowship with men; that if He did not do so He would not be righteous and would fail to act in His proper character, leaves unanswered in any distinctive Pauline fashion the question what means Cod takes to secure fellowship with sinful men so that He may act towards the ungodly in a way which does justice to Himself St. Paul does not leave the presentation of Christ as a means by which this fellowship may be instituted, without a much closer definition; he clearly relates it to the vicarious principle lying for him in his elect word ‘propitiation,’ whether it be taken as a strictly sacrificial term or not (see, in addition, articlePropitiation). </p> <p> Denney, who discusses these views at length,†[Note: Death of Christ, 164 ff.]maintains that the righteousness of God has not the same meaning throughout this passage (&nbsp;Romans 3:21 ff.); it has ‘in one place-say in &nbsp;Romans 3:22 -the half-technical sense which belongs to it as a summary of St. Paul’s gospel; and in another-say in &nbsp;Romans 3:26 -the larger and more general sense which might belong to it elsewhere in [[Scripture]] as a synonym for God’s character, or at least for one of His essential attributes.’ But these two views are not unrelated; they cannot be discussed apart; we see them harmonized as complements in the true meaning of ‘propitiation.’ Christ is set forth by God as a propitiation to exhibit their unity and consistency with each other. When the Pauline view of ‘propitiation,’ as ‘relative to some problem created by sin for a God who would justify sinners,’ is accepted in a substitutionary sense and the argument of the passage reaches its climax, the two senses of the righteousness of God in it ‘have sifted themselves out, so to speak, and stand distinctly side by side.’‡[Note: ibid 165.]God is the Just in His own character; and at the same time, in providing it righteousness of God through faith, which stands to the good of the believing sinner, He is the Justifier. That both these meanings are present in atonement and are there harmonized with one another, is what St. Paul seeks to bring out. </p> <p> St. Paul would show God righteous in His forbearance in ‘the passing over of sins done aforetime.’ But, as he defines the effects of the propitiation, he leaves the wrath of God in the background; the forbearance of God becomes the centre of his thought; that is a gracious fact and must be accounted for. Why has God never dealt with sinful men according to their sins? He has always been slow to anger and of great kindness, a gracious God and merciful; sins done aforetime were passed over. Does the doing of this impugn His righteousness? St. Paul finds his apology for, and explanation of, the universal graciousness of God in the propitiation which He has set forth in Christ by His blood. God cannot be charged with moral indifference because He has always been God, the Saviour. [[Sin]] has never been a trivial matter; any omission to mark it by inflicting its full penal consequences has been due to forbearance, which now in the propitiation justifies itself to His righteousness. If, apart from this, God had invested with privilege those whose sin deserved the manifestation of His wrath, He would, St. Paul thinks, have suppressed His righteousness. To show the Justifier, whether ‘in respect of sins done aforetime’ or ‘at this present season,’ to be Himself just, St. Paul holds the setting forth of His righteousness by the propitiation in the blood of Christ to be necessary. Christ’s death, therefore, was something more than a great ethical appeal of the love of God in suffering for sin to the heart and conscience of men; it had been rendered necessary by the remission of sins in ages before the Advent, as well as to justify the readiness and desire of God to remit the sins of any man who ‘at this present season’ ‘hath faith in Jesus.’ </p> <p> This exaltation of the forbearance of God as the ultimate explanation of the propitiation is intended to make known the ultimate fact that the wrath of God against sin lies within the supreme constraint of the love of God-‘His own love’ which He commendeth toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us (&nbsp;Romans 5:6 ff.). Christ was set forth by God Himself; His love provided the propitiation; there was no constraint upon Christ. He gave Himself up for us; there was no conflict between the Divine wrath and the Divine love; they were reconciled in God, and their reconciliation set forth in the propitiation in the blood of Christ. The wrath is the expression and minister of the love; mere self-consideration is unknown in the Divine activity. Moreover, where the love has prevailed, the wrath fails, ‘While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us; much more then being now justified in his blood shall we be saved through him from the wrath. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life’ (&nbsp;Romans 5:8 ff.). The achievement of redemption in its ethical value proceeds from the death of Christ as the supreme demonstration of the Divine love, by evoking in sinful souls the response of a personal surrender to the newness of life to which it constrains. This may introduce the classical passage in St. Paul’s writings on the doctrine of atonement. ‘All things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation. We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us; we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God, Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in him’ (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:18 ff.). The Pauline doctrine receives its most satisfying and probably its most permanent interpretation in the restoration of acceptable personal relations between God and man, and the perfecting of these in a fellowship of holy love. </p> <p> ( <i> c </i> ) <i> Atonement and Personality </i> .-Love, the perfect expression of the Divine Personality, constrained God to identify Himself in Christ with us, and constrains us to identify ourselves in Christ with God. Personality finds its perfection in fellowship; self-identification with others is the ultimate of fellowship. Identification is the principle on which an interpretation of reconciliation most easily proceeds (see Reconciliation). Love is essentially self-impartation. [[Reconciliation]] is an exchange, the giving and receiving of love; ‘at-one-ment’ is its issue. This is based in the Pauline thought upon the Divine initiative. God ‘made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf,’ that there might be identification of righteousness as well as of love in the reconciliation, ‘that we might become the righteousness of God in him,’ ‘not reckoning unto men their trespasses.’ These words suggest the idea of such an identification of men ‘in Christ’ that there is on God’s part a general justification of mankind in the form of a non-imputation of sins, on the purely objective ground of God’s satisfaction by self-giving in Him who knowing no sin was made sin on our behalf, [[Individual]] identification of man will follow, as, in response to God’s entreating, each man is reconciled to God. ‘For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and be died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but to him who for their sakes died and rose again’ (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:14 f.). As the race died in Christ, His death is a true crisis in every man’s history; there is a new creation, which includes both a new status and a new creature. That all died in Christ is neither wholly subjective nor wholly objective. St. Paul’s full doctrine requires both; their death is died by Him, and His death is died by thorn. But in the order of thought He must first die their death, that they may die His. We never read that God has been reconciled; He reconciled Himself to the world in Christ, but men are reconciled or ‘receive the reconciliation.’ St. Paul’s judgment is that the atonement is a finished work, but that the ‘atonement’ is progressive; reconciliation is first a work wrought on men’s behalf before it is wrought within their hearts; it is a work outside of men, that it may be a work within them; there is objective basis: for the subjective experience. </p> <p> Some interpreters, <i> e.g. </i> Denney,*[Note: Death of Christ, 145.]would limit the reconciliation to what God in Christ has done outside of up; others, <i> e.g. </i> Kaftan,†[Note: Dogmatik, § 52 ff.]hold that nothing is to be called reconciliation unless men are actually reconciled. St. Paul’s doctrine is consistent with the view that reconciliation is both something which is done and something which is being done. The expression of that which is done and the source of that which is being done are seen in the solemn assertion that God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf. No exegesis is more than a halting interpretation of the profound significance of this saying. At least the words mean that He died for our sin in regard to its consequences. They seem, however, to mean more; but in what sense God’s love in the gift of Christ can be said to be identified with ‘sin on our behalf,’ it is impossible to say. [[Certain]] it is that St. Paul had other and more usual ways of saying that the sinless One was a sin-bearer in the sense of an offering for sin. The strength of the saying is that He died to all that sin could mean, and that, in this dying unto sin once for all, the race with which [[Ho]] identified Himself in His sufferings and death died with Him; it is a death which contains the death of all, rather than solely a death which would otherwise have been died by all; in it their trespasses are not imputed unto them, and by the constraint of its demonstration of love they live not unto themselves but unto Him who died for them and rose again. The statement that all this was the work of ‘God in Christ’ suffices to refute any reading of the process of reconciliation which suggests a contrast that approaches competition between the righteousness of Cod and the love of Christ. It is identification which is supreme here. For, while it is no doubt true that the conception of Christ as substitute suits the interpretation of His death as sacrificial, the idea of representation best accords with the whole group of passages from which by induction St. Paul’s law of redemption is to be gathered. In these, Christ appears as a central Person, in whom the race is gathered into an ethical unity, having one responsibility and one inheritance. In this identity even those realities usually regarded as inseparable from personality, such as sin and righteousness, are treated as separable entities passing freely from the one participant in the identification to the other-sin to the Sinless One, righteousness to the unrighteous. An objective identity of this order, however, does not permanently satisfy so keen a thinker as St. Paul; he cannot rest short of subjective identity between [[Redeemer]] and redeemed. Not only in virtual oneness by Divine appointment, but in actual union by living experience, is identification to be achieved. This provides the basis for St. Paul’s teaching on- </p> <p> ( <i> d </i> ) <i> Atonement and Newness of Life </i> .-The work of redemption was not wholly a matter of juridical substitution and imputation. Another line of thought of great importance is pursued, besides the freeing from the curse and the deliverance from wrath. The relation of men to the salvation of Christ is not purely passive.*[Note: C. McGiffert, Apostolic Age, Edinburgh, 1897, p. 120.]They must enter into intimate union of life with Him. They must die in effect with Christ to sin on His cross, and rise with Him in newness of life. Through their faith they constitute His mystical body; they have corporate identity with Him in ‘the life which is life indeed’; they are saved from the power as well as the guilt of sin; freedom from the law of sin and death completes the release from its condemnation; the release from past sin in the atonement in Christ’s death does not exhaust its aim; it involves the actual renunciation of the selfish life and the realization of the life of holy love. </p> <p> Although this conception is not wholly out of mind in chs. 3 and 4 of Romans and elsewhere (cf. &nbsp;Galatians 2:19 f., &nbsp;Colossians 2:20; &nbsp;Colossians 3:3, &nbsp;Philippians 3:9 f.), in which the juridical view of Christ’s death is developed, it finds its full presentation in reply to an imaginary objection to the juridical view in Romans 6 and the following three chapters. The question, Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? starts St. Paul upon an exposition of the essential relation between the righteousness which is by faith in Christ as ‘propitiation,’ and the righteousness which is personal and real, through vital fellowship with His death and resurrection; ‘crucified with him, buried with him, raised with him,’ believers also walk with Him ‘in newness of life.’ There is something in the experience of Christ which they repeat so far as its ethical implications can be realized in their own experience; for the closest of links exists between the saving deed of Christ and the ethical issues of the salvation it has brought about. Although St. Paul does not make any direct use of the spotless holiness and perfect obedience of Christ save in so far as they issue in His death, still these ethical qualities of the Redeemer become the ethical demand in the redeemed as their union of life with Him is unfolded. The great Pauline conception ‘in Christ’ is required to complete on its ethical side the salvation which is ‘through Christ’ on the legal side. </p> <p> In recent exposition the relation between these two-the ‘subjective-mystical’ view of salvation and the ‘objective-juridical’-has been much discussed. Is the former an addition, a supplement, a correlative, or a transformation of the latter? ‘Probably a majority of recent scholars hold that the conception of freedom from sin through a new moral life is primary in the thought of the Apostle’;†[Note: g. Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation, 70; W. Beyschlag, NT Theol., Eng. tr., 1895, ii. 198-201; C. v. Weizsäcker, Das apostolische Zeitalter, [[Freiburg]] i. B., 1890, p. 139 (Eng. tr., London, 1895, ii. 104 f.).]others reverse this relation.‡[Note: g. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, Berlin, 1887, p. 229; E. Ménégoz, Le Péché et la Rédemption d’après St. Paul, 1882, ii. 251 ff.]Denney strongly maintains that Christ’s substitutionary death is primary, and that the ethico-mystical views are directly deduced from it; the latter indicate the inevitable result of a true appropriating faith in the substitutionary death of Christ, the sole object of which was to atone for sin; gratitude to Christ for this redemptive act of love Being sufficient to evoke the whole experience of salvation on its ethical side. St. Paul’s thought has only one focus-Christ’s ‘finished work,’ His ‘atonement outside of us,’*[Note: Death of Christ, 179-192.]A. B. [[Bruce]] fears that the practical schism between these two experiences of faith in the objective work of Christ and personal union in His death and resurrection is too real for such, a view; he thinks that the doctrine of an objective righteousness wrought out by Christ was first elaborated, that this ‘met the spiritual need of the conversion crisis,’ and that ‘the doctrine of subjective righteousness came in due season to solve problems arising out of Christian experience’; conseque </p>

<p> Old Testament Primarily in the Old Testament, atonement refers to the process God established whereby humans could make an offering to God to restore fellowship with God. Such offerings, including both live and dead animals, incense, and money, were required to remove the bad effects of human sin. </p> <p> The only fast day stipulated in the [[Mosaic]] law was the annual day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), observed on the tenth day of [[Tishri]] (September-October) at the conclusion of ten days of penitence. The day of Atonement was the only day of the year that the priest entered the holy of holies to make sin offerings for himself, his family, and the “assembly of Israel.” After making these offerings, the nation's sins were symbolically laid on the scapegoat “Azazel” that was released into the wilderness to die. </p> <p> While atonement in the Old Testament most frequently refers to humans offering sacrifices to God for their wrongdoing, several references are made to God making atonement. In &nbsp;Psalm 78:38 , the Hebrew for “atoned for” is used where the KJV translates “forgave” as is also true in &nbsp;Deuteronomy 21:8 . Because God “atones for” or “covers” human sin, atonement is best understood as expiation, that is removing the barrier that sin creates rather than propitiation or appeasing an angry God, though both views of atonement continue to be taught by Bible students. </p> <p> New Testament The New Testament rarely uses a word for atonement. The basic Greek word is <i> katallasso </i> , usually translated “to reconcile,” and the corresponding noun, <i> katallage </i> , meaning “reconciliation.” The basic meaning is to establish friendship. This is used in human relationships in &nbsp;1 Corinthians 7:11 , referring to the restoration of relationship between an estranged husband and wife. Paul used the term in reference to Christ's work of salvation in &nbsp;Romans 5:10-11; &nbsp;Romans 11:15; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:18-20 . The Greek term <i> hilaskomai </i> , “to forgive” or “show mercy” along with the nouns <i> hilasmos </i> , “means of forgiveness,” and <i> hilasterion </i> , “means or place of forgiveness” are the important words in the discussion of expiation and propitiation. They occur in &nbsp;Luke 18:13; &nbsp;Romans 3:25; &nbsp;Hebrews 2:17; &nbsp;Hebrews 9:5; &nbsp;1 John 2:2; &nbsp;1 John 4:10 . </p> <p> Atonement and the Cross The focal point of God's atoning work is Christ's death on the cross. Paul wrote that “when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (&nbsp;Romans 5:10 ). These words not only define the meaning of atonement, they reveal the heart of the gospel as well. </p> <p> The primacy of the cross is emphasized throughout the New Testament. At the beginning of His ministry, Jesus was identified as “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (&nbsp;John 1:29 ). The purpose of His coming was “to give his life a ransom for many” (&nbsp;Mark 10:45 ). He explained His death in terms of the “blood of the new testament, which is shed for many” (&nbsp;Mark 14:24 ). </p> <p> The relation of the cross to forgiveness of sins was implicit in the earliest Christian preaching (&nbsp;Acts 2:21; &nbsp;Acts 3:6 ,Acts 3:6,&nbsp;3:19; &nbsp;Acts 4:13; &nbsp;Acts 5:31; &nbsp;Acts 8:35; &nbsp;Acts 10:43 ). Paul proclaimed that “Christ died for our sins”(&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:3 ), that He was a “propitiation” (&nbsp;Romans 3:25 KJV; “sacrifice of atonement,” NRSV, NIV; “expiation,” RSV), that He became “a curse for us” (&nbsp; Galatians 3:13 ), and that those “who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ” (&nbsp;Ephesians 2:13 ). Furthermore, “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” (&nbsp;Hebrews 9:28 ) and has become “a new and living way” (&nbsp;Hebrews 10:20 ) into God's presence. He is the one who “bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (&nbsp;1 Peter 2:24 ). </p> <p> Though atonement is focused in the cross, the New Testament makes clear that Christ's death is the climax of His perfect obedience. He “became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (&nbsp;Philippians 2:8 ). “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which He suffered” (&nbsp;Hebrews 5:8 ). &nbsp;Romans 5:12-19 contrasts Christ's obedience with Adam's disobedience. His sinless obedience qualified Him to be the perfect Sacrifice for sin (&nbsp; Hebrews 6:8-10 ). </p> <p> Furthermore, the New Testament interprets the cross in light of the resurrection. “At-one-ment” is the achievement of Christ crucified and risen. So important is this emphasis that Paul affirms, “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:17 ). </p> <p> The [[Necessity]] of Atonement The necessity for Christ's atoning work is occasioned by the breach in the relationship between the [[Creator]] and the creature. This breach is the result of humanity's sinful rebellion. “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear” (&nbsp;Isaiah 59:2 ). Thus, in their unreconciled state people are God's “enemies” (&nbsp;Romans 5:10 ), have “enmity against God” (&nbsp;Romans 8:7 ), and have “no hope” (&nbsp;Ephesians 2:12 ). There is no difference between Jew and [[Gentile]] in this respect, “for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (&nbsp;Romans 3:23 ). </p> <p> The Origin of Atonement The atonement for sin provided by Christ's death had its origin in divine love. No other reason can explain why “God reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ” (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:18 ). The anthem that continuously peals from the Bible is that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (&nbsp;John 3:16; see &nbsp;1 John 4:9-10 ). This does not mean that God loves us because Christ died for us. Rather, Christ died for us because God loves us. Thus, “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (&nbsp;Romans 5:8 ). Because atonement issues from love, it is always seen as a divine gift, never as human achievement. </p> <p> Yet, divine love is not sentimental or merely emotional. It is a righteous love which blazes out against all that opposes God's will. The New Testament affirms that “God is love” (&nbsp;1 John 4:8 ); it also affirms that “our God is a consuming fire” (&nbsp;Hebrews 12:29 ). Thus, the cross is simultaneously a manifestation of God's will to save and of His wrath against sin. </p> <p> Atonement: [[Representation]] and [[Substitution]] In His atoning work Christ is both representative and substitute. As representative, Christ acted on behalf of His race. An example of representation is Paul's contrast between Adam and Christ (&nbsp;Romans 5:12-21; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:45-49 ). Adam and Christ represent two heads of two races of people. Adam is the head of the race of fallen persons. Sin and death came into the world through him. Because of our fallenness, all people belong to Adam's race, the old humanity. </p> <p> Christ, the last Adam, represents a new race of people. These are the people who have been saved from sin. Where Adam failed, Christ succeeded. Those who belong to Christ through faith belong to the new humanity He created (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:17; &nbsp;Ephesians 2:14-22 ). </p> <p> As substitute, Christ acted <i> in our place </i> . [[Whereas]] representation emphasizes Christ's relation to the race, substitution stresses His relation to the individual. He experienced as substitute the suffering and death each person deserved. Substitution is implied in such references as &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:21; &nbsp;Galatians 3:13; &nbsp;1 Peter 2:24 . </p> <p> In thinking of Christ as substitute, however, His oneness with the Father must be emphasized. Christ is not a third party who comes between God and humanity to absorb all the punishment God can inflict. Substitution means that in Christ, God Himself bears the consequences of human sin. God reconciles people at great cost to Himself, not at cost to a third party. </p> <p> [[Images]] of Atonement To describe the meaning of atonement New Testament writers used images drawn from different areas of experience. Each image says something important about the cross. No one image, however, is adequate by itself. Each image needs the others to produce the whole picture. </p> <p> 1. Atonement and ransom. Ransom is an image drawn from ancient economic life. The picture is a slave market or prison. People are in bondage and cannot free themselves. Someone comes and pays the price (provides the ransom) to redeem those in captivity. </p> <p> The New Testament emphasizes both the fact of deliverance and the ransom price. Jesus said that He came “to give his life a ransom for many” (&nbsp;Mark 10:45 ). Paul wrote, “ye are not your own; For ye are bought with a price” (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 6:19-20; compare &nbsp;1 Corinthians 7:23 ). Peter declared that “ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, But with the precious blood of Christ” (&nbsp;1 Peter 1:18-19 ). The main idea in this imagery is rescue from bondage through the costly self-giving of Jesus. </p> <p> 2. Atonement and victory. In this imagery, Satan, the head of evil forces and archenemy of God, has humanity in his power. Christ is the [[Warrior]] of God who enters the battle, defeats the devil, and rescues humanity. </p> <p> This conflict motif pervades the gospels (&nbsp;Matthew 4:1-11; &nbsp;Matthew 12:28; &nbsp;Mark 3:27; &nbsp;John 12:31 ). The warfare between Jesus and Satan was real. Yet, divine victory was so certain that Jesus could say in anticipation, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (&nbsp;Luke 10:18 ). </p> <p> [[Victory]] imagery is also prominent in the epistles. “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil” (&nbsp;1 John 3:8 ). Christ came so “that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (&nbsp;Hebrews 2:14-15 ). That Christ triumphed is clear: “And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (&nbsp;Colossians 2:15 ). </p> <p> 3. Atonement and sacrifice. Not surprisingly, the atoning power of Christ's death is often expressed in terms drawn from Old Testament sacrificial practices. Thus, Christ's death is called a “sacrifice for sins” (&nbsp;Hebrews 10:12 ) and a “sacrifice to God” (&nbsp;Ephesians 5:2 ). Christ is variously identified with the [[Passover]] lamb (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 5:7 ), the sacrifice which initiates the new covenant (&nbsp;Luke 22:20 ), and the sin offering (&nbsp;Hebrews 9:14 ,Hebrews 9:14,&nbsp;9:25-28 ). </p> <p> Sacrificial imagery is another way of expressing the costliness of Christ's atoning work. It is a continual reminder that divine love has assumed the shape of the cross (&nbsp;Galatians 2:20 ). Furthermore, sacrifice witnesses to the effectiveness of Christ's death. Through it, sin is forgiven (&nbsp;Ephesians 1:7 ), and the conscience is cleansed (&nbsp;Hebrews 9:14 ). </p> <p> 4. Atonement and glory. In much of the New Testament the glorification of Jesus is associated with His resurrection and ascension. John's Gospel shifts perspective. The whole life and work of Jesus is a revelation of divine glory. This glorification climaxes in Jesus' death on the cross (&nbsp;John 12:23-24; &nbsp;John 13:31-32 ). </p> <p> Consistent with this theme is the emphasis on the cross as “lifting up.” This verb has the double meaning of “to lift up on a cross” and “to exalt.” The meanings are combined in John's Gospel. “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.' This he said, signifying what death he should die.” (&nbsp;John 12:32-33; compare &nbsp;John 3:14; &nbsp;John 8:28 ). The meaning is not that Jesus was glorified as a reward for His death. Rather it means that divine glory was revealed in the death He died for sins. See [[Propitiation]]; Expiation; Redeem; and the Atonement chart that follows. </p> <p> Bert Dominy </p>

<p> (See [[Reconciliation]] .) Literally, the being at one, after having been at variance. Tyndale explains "One Mediator" (&nbsp;1 Timothy 2:5): "at one maker between God and man." To made atonement is to give or do that whereby alienation ceases and reconciliation ensues. "Reconciliation" is the equivalent term given for the same Hebrew word, kopher , in &nbsp;Daniel 9:24; &nbsp;Leviticus 8:15; &nbsp;Ezekiel 45:15. In the New Testament KJV once only "atonement" is used (&nbsp;Romans 5:11): "by whom (Christ) we have received the atonement" (katallage ), where the reconciliation or atonement must be on God's part toward us, for it could not well be said, "We have received the reconciliation on our part toward Him." </p> <p> [[Elsewhere]] the same Greek is translated "reconciliation" (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:18-19). A kindred term expressing a different aspect of the same truth is "propitiation" (hilasmos ) (&nbsp;1 John 2:2), the verb of which is in &nbsp;Hebrews 2:17 translated "to make reconciliation." Also "ransom," or payment for redeeming a captive (&nbsp;Job 33:24), kopher , "an atonement," &nbsp;Matthew 20:28. &nbsp;Hebrews 9:12; Christ, "having obtained eternal redemption for us" (lutrosis , the deliverance bought for us by His bloodshedding, the price: &nbsp;1 Peter 1:18). </p> <p> The verb kipper 'al , "to cover upon," expresses the removing utterly out of sight the guilt of person or thing by a ransom, satisfaction, or substituted victim. The use of the word and the noun kopher , throughout the Old Testament, proves that, as applied to the atonement or reconciliation between God and man, it implies not merely what is man's part in finding acceptance with God, but, in the first instance, what God's justice required on His part, and what His love provided, to justify His entering into reconciliation with man. In &nbsp;Leviticus 1:4; &nbsp;Leviticus 4:26; &nbsp;Leviticus 5:1; &nbsp;Leviticus 5:16-18; &nbsp;Leviticus 5:16; &nbsp;Leviticus 17:11, the truth is established that the guilt is transferred from the sinful upon the innocent substitute, in order to make amends to violated justice, and to cover (atone: kipper' al ) or put out of sight the guilt (compare &nbsp;Micah 7:19 end), and to save the sinner from the wages of sin which is death. </p> <p> On the great day of atonement the high priest made "atonement for the sanctuary, the tabernacle, and the altar" also, as well as for the priests and all the people; but it was the people's sin that defiled the places so as to make them unfit for the presence of the Holy One. Unless the atonement was made the soul "bore its iniquity," i.e. was under the penalty of death. The exceptions of atonement made with fine flour by one not able to afford the animal sacrifice (&nbsp;Leviticus 5:11), and by Aaron with incense on a sudden emergency (&nbsp;Numbers 16:47), confirm the rule. The blood was the medium of atonement, because it had the life or soul (nephesh ) in it. The soul of the offered victim atoned for the soul of the sinful offerer. </p> <p> The guiltless blood was given by God to be shed to atone for the forfeited blood of the guilty. The innocent victim pays the penalty of the offerer's sin, death (&nbsp;Romans 6:28). This atonement was merely typical in the Old Testament sacrifices; real in the one only New Testament sacrifice, Christ Jesus. Κaphar and kopher is in &nbsp;Genesis 6:14, "Thou shalt pitch the ark with pitch," the instrument of covering the saved from the destroying flood outside, as Jesus' blood interposes between believers and the flood of wrath that swallows up the lost. Jacob uses the same verb (&nbsp;Genesis 32:20), "I will appease [[Esau]] with the present," i.e., cover out of sight or turn away his wrath. </p> <p> The "mercy-seat" whereat God meets man (being reconciled through the blood there sprinkled, and so man can meet God) is called kapporeth , i.e. flee lid of the ark, covering the law inside, which is fulfilled in Messiah who is called by the corresponding Greek term, hilasterion , "the propitiatory" or mercy-seat, "whom God hath set forth to be a propitiatory through faith in His blood" (&nbsp;Romans 3:23). God Himself made a coat (singular in Heb.) of skin, and clothed Adam and his wife (&nbsp;Genesis 3:21). The animal cannot have been slain for food, for animal food was not permitted to man until after the flood (&nbsp;Genesis 9:3); nor for clothing, for the fleece would afford that, without the needless killing of the animal. It must have been for sacrifice, the institution of which is presumed in the preference given to Abel's sacrifice, above Cain's offering of firstfruits, in Genesis 4. </p> <p> Typically; God taught that the clothing for the soul must, be from the Victim whom God's love provided to cover our guilt forever out of sight (Psalms 32:D (not kaphar , but kasah ) (&nbsp;Romans 4:17; &nbsp;Isaiah 61:10), the same Hebrew (labash ) as in &nbsp;Genesis 3:21, "clothed." The universal prevalence of propitiatory sacrifices over the pagan world implies a primitive revelation of the need of expiatory atonement, and of the inefficacy of repentance alone to remove guilt. This is the more remarkable in Hindostan, where it is considered criminal to take away the life of any animal. God's righteous character and government interposed a barrier to sinful man's pardon and reception into favor. The sinner's mere desire for these blessings does not remove the barrier out of the way. Something needed to be done for him, not by him. </p> <p> It was for God, against whom man sinned, to appoint the means for removing the barrier. The sinless Jesus' sacrifice for, and instead of, us sinners was the mean so appointed. The sinner has simply by faith to embrace the means. And as the means, the vicarious atonement by Christ, is of God, it must be efficacious for salvation. Not that Jesus' death induced God to love us; but because God loved us He gave Jesus to reconcile the claims of justice and mercy, "that God might be just and at the same time the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus" (&nbsp;Romans 3:26; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:18-21). Jesus is, it is true, not said in Scripture to reconcile God to the sinner, because the reconciliation in the first instance emanated from God Himself. God reconciled us to Himself, i.e. restored us to His favor, by satisfying the claims of justice against us. </p> <p> Christ's atonement makes a change, not in God's character as if God's love was produced by it, but in our position judicially considered in the eye of the divine law. Christ's sacrifice was the provision of God's love, not its moving cause (&nbsp;Romans 8:32). Christ's blood was the ransom paid at the expense of God Himself, to reconcile the exercise of mercy and justice, not as separate, but as the eternally harmonious attributes in the same God. God reconciles the world unto Himself, in the first instance, by satisfying His own just enmity against sin (&nbsp;Psalms 7:11; &nbsp;Isaiah 12:1, compare &nbsp;1 Samuel 29:4; "reconcile himself unto his master," not remove his own anger against his master, but his master's anger against him). Men's reconciliation to God by laying aside their enmity is the after consequence of their believing that He has laid aside His judicial enmity against their sin. </p> <p> Penal and vicarious satisfaction for our guilt to God's law by Christ's sacrificial death is taught &nbsp;Matthew 20:28; "the Son of man came to give His life a ransom for (anti) many" (anti implies vicarious satisfaction in &nbsp;Matthew 5:28; &nbsp;Mark 10:45). &nbsp;1 Timothy 2:6; "who gave Himself a ransom for (antilutron , an equivalent payment in substitution for) all." &nbsp;Ephesians 5:25; &nbsp;1 Peter 2:24; &nbsp;1 Peter 3:15; "the Just for the unjust ... suffered for us." &nbsp;John 1:29; "the Lamb of God taketh away the sin of the world." &nbsp;1 Corinthians 5:7; &nbsp;1 Peter 1:19; &nbsp;John 10:15; &nbsp;Romans 4:25; "He was delivered on account of (dia ) our offenses, and raised again for the sake of (dia ) our justification." (&nbsp;Revelation 1:5; &nbsp;Hebrews 9:13-14.) [[Conscience]] feels instinctively the penal claims of violated divine justice, and can only find peace when by faith it has realized that those claims have been fully met by our sacrificed substitute (&nbsp;Hebrews 9:9; &nbsp;Hebrews 10:1-2; &nbsp;Hebrews 10:22; &nbsp;1 Peter 3:21). </p> <p> The conscience reflects the law and will of God, though that law condemns the man. Opponents of the doctrine of vicarious atonement say, "it exhibits God as less willing to forgive than His creatures are bound to be;" but man's justice, which is the faint reflex of God's, binds the judge, however lamenting the painful duty, to sentence the criminal to death as a satisfaction to outraged law. Also, "as taking delight in executing vengeance on sin, or yielding to the extremity of suffering what He withheld on considerations of mercy." But the claim of God's righteousness is not pressed apart from that of God's love; both move in beautiful unity; the atonement is at once the brightest exhibition of His love and of His justice; it does not render God merciful, but opens a channel whereby love can flow in perfect harmony with His righteous law, yea "magnifying the law and making it honorable" (&nbsp;Isaiah 42:21). </p> <p> At the same time it is a true remark of Macdonell (Donellan Lectures): "Christ's work of redemption springs from an intimate relationship to those whom He redeems. It is not only because He suffers what they ought to have suffered that mercy becomes possible; but because He who suffered bore some mysterious relation to the spirits of those for whom He suffered; so that every pang He felt, and every act He did. vibrated to the extremities of that body of which He is the head, and placed not their acts, but the actors. themselves, in a new relation to the divine government and to the fountain of holiness and life." It is only as Representative Head of humanity, that the Son of man, the second Adam, made full and adequate satisfaction for the whole race whose nature He took. He died sufficiently for all men; efficiently for the elect alone (&nbsp;Hebrews 2:9-15; &nbsp;1 John 2:2; &nbsp;Acts 20:28; &nbsp;2 Peter 2:1; &nbsp;1 Timothy 4:10). </p> <p> [[Anything]] short of an adequate satisfaction would be so far an abatement; of divine justice; and if part of the sin might be forgiven without the satisfaction, why not all? If God can dispense with the claims of justice in part, He can as well do it altogether. A partial satisfaction would be almost more dishonoring to God's righteousness than a gratuitous forgiveness without any satisfaction whatever. With God alone it rested to determine what is adequate satisfaction, and how it is to become available to each man, without injury to the cause of righteousness. </p> <p> God has determined it, that in Christ's infinite dignity of person and holiness above that of any creature, there is ensured the adequateness of the satisfaction, made by His obedience and suffering, to meet the claims of justice against those whose nature He voluntarily assumed; nay more, to set forth God's glory more brightly than ever; also God has revealed that by believing the sinner becomes one with the Redeemer, and so rightly shares in the redemption wrought by Him the Head of the redeemed. No motive has ever been found so powerful as the sinner's realization of the atonement, to create love in the human heart, constraining the accepted believer henceforth to shun all sin and press after all holiness in order to please God, who first loved him (&nbsp;Romans 8:1-3; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:14-15; &nbsp;1 John 4:19). </p>

<p> Atonement may be defined as that act of dealing with sin whereby sin’s penalty is paid and sinners are brought into a right relation with God. In the Old Testament the word is used mainly in connection with the offering of sacrifices for sin. The word does not occur in most versions of the New Testament, but it is used broadly in the language of theology in relation to the sacrificial death of Christ. </p> <p> One result of universal human sin is that all people are under God’s judgment. They are guilty, the penalty is death, and they cannot, by their own efforts, escape this penalty. They are cut off from God and there is no way they can bring themselves back to God (&nbsp;Psalms 14:3; &nbsp;Isaiah 59:2; &nbsp;Romans 1:18; &nbsp;Romans 3:20; &nbsp;Romans 3:23; &nbsp;Romans 6:23; see [[Sin]] ). God, however, gives them a way by which they may obtain forgiveness and be brought back to God. This is through the blood of a sacrifice, where blood is symbolic of the life of the innocent victim laid down as substitute for the guilty sinner (&nbsp;Leviticus 17:11; &nbsp;Hebrews 9:22; &nbsp;1 John 4:10; see [[Blood]] ). </p> <p> Atonement is therefore not something that people can achieve by their own efforts, but something that God provides. Whether in Old or New Testament times, forgiveness is solely by God’s grace and sinners receive it by faith (&nbsp;Psalms 32:5; &nbsp;Psalms 51:17; &nbsp;Micah 7:18; &nbsp;Ephesians 2:8). The Old Testament sacrifices were not a way of salvation. They were a means by which repentant sinners could demonstrate their faith in God and at the same time see what their atonement involved. The sacrifices showed them how it was possible for God to act rightly in punishing sin while forgiving repentant sinners. (See JUSTIFICATION; PROPITIATION; RECONCILIATION; REDEMPTION; SACRIFICE; SANCTIFICATION.) </p> <p> The sacrifices of the Old Testament pointed to the one great sacrifice that is the only basis on which God can forgive a person’s sins, the death of Christ. Through that death God is able justly to forgive the sins of all who turn to him in faith, no matter what era they might have lived in (&nbsp;Matthew 26:28; &nbsp;Romans 3:25-26; &nbsp;Romans 4:25; &nbsp;Hebrews 9:15; &nbsp;1 Peter 2:24). (See also [[Day Of Atonement]] .) </p>

<div> '''1: καταλλαγή ''' (Strong'S #2643 — Noun [[Feminine]] — katallage — kat-al-lag-ay' ) </div> <p> translated "atonement" in the AV of &nbsp;Romans 5:11 , signifies, not "atonement," but "reconciliation," as in the RV. See also &nbsp;Romans 11:15; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:18,19 . So with the corresponding verb katallasso, see under Reconcile. "Atonement" (the explanation of this English word as being "at-one-ment" is entirely fanciful) is frequently found in the OT. See, for instance, Leviticus, chapters 16 and 17. The corresponding NT words are hilasmos, "propitiation," &nbsp; 1 John 2:2; &nbsp;4:10 , and hilasterion, &nbsp;Romans 3:25; &nbsp;Hebrews 9:5 , "mercy-seat," the covering of the ark of the covenant. These describe the means (in and through the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, in His death on the cross by the shedding of His blood in His vicarious sacrifice for sin) by which God shows mercy to sinners. See Propitiation. </p>

<p> The satisfaction offered to divine justice for the sins of mankind by the death of Jesus Christ; by virtue of which all true penitents believing in Christ are reconciled to God, are freed from the penalty of their sins, and entitled to eternal life. The atonement by Jesus Christ is the great distinguishing peculiarity of the gospel, and is presented in a great variety of terms and illustrations in both the Old Testament and the New. See REDEMPTION, SACRIFICES. </p> <p> The English word atonement originally denoted the reconciliation of parties previously at variance. It is used in the Old Testament to translate a Hebrew word which means a covering; implying that by a Divine propitiation the sinner is covered from the just anger of God. This is actually effected by the death of Christ; while the ceremonial offerings of the Jewish church only secured from impending temporal judgments, and typified the blood of Jesus Christ which "cleanseth us from all sin." </p>

<p> '''''a''''' -'''''tōn´ment''''' : Translates כּפר , <i> '''''kāphar''''' </i> ; חטא , <i> '''''ḥāṭā'''''' </i> ; רצה , <i> '''''rācāh''''' </i> , the last employed only of human relations (&nbsp;1 Samuel 29:4 ); translates the following Greek stems <i> '''''hilas''''' </i> -, simple and compounded with various prepositions; <i> '''''allag''''' </i> - in composition only, but with numerous prepositions and even two at a time, e.g. &nbsp;Matthew 5:24; <i> '''''lip''''' </i> - rarely (&nbsp;Daniel 9:24 ). </p> I. Terms [[Employed]] <p> 1. Hebrew and Greek Words </p> <p> The root meanings of the Hebrew words, taking them in the order cited above, are, to "cover," hence expiate, condone, cancel, placate; to "offer," or "receive a sin offering," hence, make atonement, appease, propitiate; "effect reconciliation," i.e. by some conduct, or course of action. Of the Greek words the meanings, in order, are "to be," or "cause to be, friendly"; "to render other," hence to restore; "to leave" and with preposition to leave off, i.e. enmity, or evil, etc.; "to render holy," "to set apart for"; hence, of the Deity, to appropriate or accept for Himself. </p> <p> 2. The English Word </p> <p> It is obvious that the English word "atonement" does not correspond etymologically with any Hebrew or Greek word which it translates. Furthermore, the Greek words in both [[Septuagint]] and New Testament do not correspond exactly to the Hebrew words; especially is it true that the root idea of the most frequently employed Hebrew word, " <i> cover </i> ," is not found in any of the Greek words employed. These remarks apply to both verbs and substantives The English word is derived from the phrase "at one," and signifies, etymologically, harmony of relationship or unity of life, etc. It is a rare instance of an [[As]] theological term; and, like all purely English terms employed in theology, takes its meaning, not from its origin, but from theological content of the thinking of the Continental and Latin-speaking [[Schoolmen]] who employed such English terms as seemed most nearly to convey to the hearers and readers their ideas. Not only was no effort made to convey the original Hebrew and Greek meanings by means of English words, but no effort was made toward uniformity in translating of Hebrew and Greek words by their English equivalents. </p> <p> 3. Not to Be [[Settled]] by Lexicon Merely </p> <p> It is at once clear that no mere word-study can determine the Bible teaching concerning atonement. Even when first employed for expressing Hebrew and Christian thought, these terms, like all other religious terms, already had a content that had grown up with their use, and it is by no means easy to tell how far heathen conceptions might be imported into our theology by a rigidly etymological study of terms employed. In any case such a study could only yield a dictionary of terms, whereas what we seek is a body of teaching, a circle of ideas, whatever words and phrases, or combinations of words and phrases, have been employed to express the teaching. </p> <p> 4. Not [[Chiefly]] a Study in [[Theology]] </p> <p> There is even greater danger of making the study of the Atonement a study in dogmatic theology. The frequent employment of the expression " <i> the </i> Atonement" shows this tendency. The work of Christ in reconciling the world to God has occupied so central a place in Christian dogmatics that the very term atonement has come to have a theological rather than a practical atmosphere, and it is by no means easy for the student, or even for the seeker after the saving relation with God, to pass beyond the accumulated interpretation of <i> the </i> Atonement and learn of atonement. </p> <p> 5. Notes on Use of Terms </p> <p> The history of the explanation of the Atonement and the terms of preaching atonement cannot, of course, be ignored. Nor can the original meaning of the terms employed and the manner of their use be neglected. There are significant features in the use of terms, and we have to take account of the history of interpretation. Only we must not bind ourselves nor the word of God in such forms. </p> <p> (1) The most frequently employed Hebrew word, <i> '''''kāphar''''' </i> , is found in the Prophets only in the priestly section (&nbsp;Ezekiel 45:15 , &nbsp;Ezekiel 45:20; &nbsp;Daniel 9:24 ) where English [[Versions]] of the Bible have "make reconciliation," margin, "purge away." Furthermore, it is not found in Deuteronomy, which is the prophetic book of the [[Pentateuch]] (Hexateuch). This indicates that it is an essentially priestly conception. The same term is frequently translated by "reconcile," construed as equivalent to "make atonement" (&nbsp;Leviticus 6:30; &nbsp;Leviticus 8:15; &nbsp;Leviticus 16:20; &nbsp;1 Samuel 29:4; &nbsp;Ezekiel 45:15 , &nbsp;Ezekiel 45:20; &nbsp;Daniel 9:24 ). In this latter sense it connects itself with <i> '''''ḥāṭā'''''' </i> ̌ . In &nbsp;2 Chronicles 29:24 both words are used: the priests make a sin offering <i> '''''ḥāṭā'''''' </i> to effect an atonement <i> '''''kāphar''''' </i> ̌ . But the first word is frequently used by metonymy to include, at least suggestively, the end in view, the reconciliation; and, on the other hand, the latter word is so used as to involve, also, doing that by which atonement is realized. </p> <p> (2) Of the Greek words employed <i> '''''hiláskesthai''''' </i> means "to make propitious" (&nbsp;Hebrews 2:17; &nbsp;Leviticus 6:30; &nbsp;Leviticus 16:20; &nbsp;Ezekiel 45:20 ); <i> '''''alláttein''''' </i> , used however only in composition with preposition, means "to render other," "to restore" to another (former?) condition of harmony (compare &nbsp;Matthew 5:24 = "to be reconciled" to a fellow-man as a condition of making an acceptable sacrifice to God). </p> <p> (3) In the English New Testament the word "atonement" is found only at &nbsp;Romans 5:11 and the American Standard Revised Version changes this to "reconciliation." While in strict etymology this word need signify only the active or conscious exercise of unity of life or harmony of relations, the causative idea probably belongs to the original use of the term, as it certainly is present in all current Christian use of the term. As employed in Christian theology, both practical and technical, the term includes with more or less distinctness: (a) The fact of union with God, and this always looked upon as (b) a broken union to be restored or an ideal union to be realized, (c) The procuring cause of atonement, variously defined, (d) the crucial act wherein the union is effected, the work of God and the response of the soul in which the union becomes actual. Inasmuch as the reconciliation between man and God is always conceived of as effected through Jesus Christ (&nbsp; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 ) the expression, "the Atonement of Christ," is one of the most frequent in Christian theology. Questions and controversies have turned mainly on the procuring cause of atonement, (c) above, and at this point have arisen the various "theories of the Atonement." </p> II. Bible Teaching [[Concerning]] Atonement in General <p> The Atonement of Christ must be interpreted in connection with the conception of atonement in general in the Scriptures. This idea of atonement is, moreover, part of the general circle of fundamental ideas of the religion of [[Yahweh]] and Jesus. Theories of the Atonement root themselves in conceptions of the nature and character of God, His holiness, love, grace, mercy, etc.; of man, his nature, disposition and capacities; of sin and guilt. </p> <p> 1. Primary Assumption of Unity of God and Man </p> <p> The basal conception for the Bible doctrine of atonement is the assumption that God and man are ideally one in life and interests, so far as man's true life and interest may be conceived as corresponding with those of God. Hence, it is everywhere assumed that God and man should be in all respects in harmonious relations, "at-one." Such is the ideal picture of Adam and [[Eve]] in Eden. Such is the assumption in the parable of the Prodigal Son; man ought to be at home with God, at peace in the Father's house (Lk 15). Such also is the ideal of Jesus as seen especially in Jn 14 through 17; compare particularly &nbsp;John 17:21; compare also &nbsp;Ephesians 2:11-22; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:28 . This is quite possibly the underlying idea of all those offerings in which the priests - G od's representatives - and the people joined in eating at a common meal parts of what had been presented to God. The prohibition of the use of blood in food or drink is grounded on the statement that the life is in the blood (&nbsp;Leviticus 17:10 f) or is the blood (&nbsp; Genesis 9:4; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 12:23 ). Blood was used in the consecration of tabernacle, temple, vessels, altars, priests; all things and persons set apart for Yahweh. Then blood was required in offerings made to atone for sin and uncleanness. The reason for all this is not easy to see; but if we seek an explanation that will account for all the facts on a single principle, shall we not find it in the idea that in the life-principle of the blood God's own life was present? Through this life from God all living beings shared God's life. The blood passing out of any living being must therefore return to God and not be consumed. In sprinkling blood, the life-element, or certainly the life-symbol, over persons and things set apart for God they were, so to say, visibly taken up into the life of God, and His life extending over them made them essentially of His own person. [[Finally]] the blood of sacrifices was the returning to God of the life of the man for whom the beasts stood. And this blood was not burned with the dead sacrifice but poured out beside the holy altar. The now dead sin offering was burned, but the blood, the life, returned to God. In peace-offerings of various sorts there was the common meal in which the common life was typified. </p> <p> In the claim of the first-fruits of all crops, of all flocks and of all increase, God emphasized the common life in production; asserted His claim to the total life of His people and their products. God claimed the lives of all as belonging essentially to Himself and a man must recognize this by paying a ransom price (&nbsp;Exodus 30:12 ). This did not purchase for the man a right to his own life in separation from God, for it was in no sense an equivalent in value to the man's time. It the rather committed the man to living the common life with God, without which recognition the man was not fit to live at all. And the use of this recognition-money by the priests in the temple was regarded as placing the man who paid his money in a sort of continuous worshipful service in the tabernacle (or temple) itself (Ech 30:11-16). </p> <p> 2. The [[Breach]] in the Unity </p> <p> In both Old Testament and New Testament the assumption of unity between God and man stands over against the contrasted fact that there is a radical breach in this unity. This breach is recognized in all God's relations to men; and even when healed it is always subject to new failures which must be provided for, by the daily oblations in the Old Testament, by the continuous intercession of the Christ (&nbsp;Hebrews 7:25; &nbsp;Hebrews 9:24 ) in the New Testament. Even when there is no conscious breach, man is taught to recognize that it may exist and he must avail himself of the appointed means for its healing, e.g. daily sacrifices. This breach is universally attributed to some behavior on man's part. This may be moral or ceremonial uncleanness on man's part. He may have broken with God fundamentally in character or conduct and so by committing sin have incurred guilt; or he may have neglected the fitting recognition that his life is in common with God and so by his disregard have incurred uncleanness. After the first breach between God and man it is always necessary that man shall approach God on the assumption that this breach needs healing, and so always come with an offering. In human nature the sin breach is rooted and universal (&nbsp;Romans 3:9-19; &nbsp;Romans 5:12-14 ). </p> <p> 3. [[Means]] for Expressing, [[Restoring]] and Maintaining </p> <p> Numerous and various means were employed for expressing this essential unity of life, for restoring it since it was broken off in sin, and for maintaining it. These means were primarily spiritual and ethical but made extensive use of material substances, physical acts and symbolical ceremonials; and these tended always to obscure and supplant the spiritual and ethical qualities which it was their function to exhibit. The prophet came to the rescue of the spiritual and ethical and reached his highest insight and function in the doctrine of the [[Suffering]] Servant of Yahweh through whom God was to be united with a redeemed race (compare among many passages, &nbsp;Isaiah 49:1-7; &nbsp;Isaiah 66:18; Y 22:27ff). </p> <p> Atonement is conceived in both Old Testament and New Testament as partly personal and partly social, extending to the universal conception. The acts and attitudes by which it is procured, restored and maintained are partly those of the individual alone (Y 51), partly those in which the individual secures the assistance of the priest or the priestly body, and partly such as the priest performs for the whole people on his own account. This involves the distinction that in Israel atonement was both personal and social, as also were both sin and uncleanness. Atonement was made for the group by the priest without specific participation by the people although they were, originally at least, to take cognizance of the fact and at the time. At all the great feasts, especially upon the Day Of Atonement (which see) the whole group was receptively to take conscious part in the work of atonement (&nbsp;Numbers 29:7-11 ). </p> <p> The various sacrifices and offerings by means of which atonement was effected in the life and worship of Israel will be found to be discussed under the proper words and are to be spoken of here only summarily. The series of offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, peace-offerings, reveal a sense of the breach with God, a conviction of the sin making the breach and an ethical appreciation of the holiness of God entirely unique among religions of ancient or modern times, and this fact must never be overlooked in interpreting the New Testament Christian doctrine of the Atonement. In the Old Testament there are sins and sinful circumstances for which no atonement is possible. Many passages, indeed, almost seem to provide against atonement for any voluntary wrongdoing (e.g. &nbsp;Leviticus 4:2 , &nbsp;Leviticus 4:13 , &nbsp;Leviticus 4:22 , &nbsp;Leviticus 4:27; &nbsp;Leviticus 5:14 ). This is, no doubt, an extreme interpretation, out of harmony with the general spirit of the Old Testament, but it does show how seriously sin ought to be taken under the Old Testament régime. No atonement for murder could make possible the residence of the murderer again in that section of the land where the murder was done (&nbsp;Numbers 35:33 ), although the land was not by the murder rendered unfit for occupation by others. When Israel sinned in making the golden calf, God refused to accept any atonement (&nbsp;Exodus 32:20 ) until there had been a great loss of life from among the sinners. No repentance could find atonement for the refusal to follow Yahweh's lead at Kadesh-barnea (&nbsp;Numbers 14:20-25 ), and complete atonement was effected only when all the unbelieving generation had died in the wilderness (&nbsp;Numbers 26:65; &nbsp;Numbers 32:10 ); i.e. no atonement was possible, but the people died in that sin, outside the Land of Promise, although the sin was not allowed to cut off finally from Yahweh (&nbsp;Numbers 14:29 f). </p> <p> Permanent uncleanness or confirmed disease of an unclean sort caused permanent separation from the temple and the people of Yahweh (e.g. &nbsp;Leviticus 7:20 f), and every uncleanness must be properly removed (&nbsp; Leviticus 5:2; &nbsp;Leviticus 17:15; &nbsp;Leviticus 22:2-8; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 23:10 f). A house in which an unclean disease was found must be cleansed - have atonement made for it (&nbsp; Leviticus 14:53 ), and in extreme cases must be utterly destroyed (&nbsp;Leviticus 14:43 ). </p> <p> After childbirth (&nbsp;Leviticus 12:7 f) and in all cases of hemorrhage (compare &nbsp; Leviticus 15:30 ) atonement must be effected by prescribed offerings, a loss, diminution, or pollution of blood, wherein is the life, having been suffered. All this elaborate application of the principle of atonement shows the comprehensiveness with which it was sought by the religious teachers to impress the people with the unity of all life in the perfectly holy and majestic God whom they were called upon to serve. Not only must the priests be clean who bear the vessels of the Lord (&nbsp;Isaiah 52:11 ), but all the people must be clean also from all defilement of flesh and spirit, seeking perfect holiness in the fear of their God (compare &nbsp;2 Corinthians 7:1 ). </p> III. The Atonement of Jesus Christ <p> 1. [[Preparation]] for New Testament Doctrine </p> <p> All the symbols, doctrine and examples of atonement in the Old Testament among the Hebrews find their counterpart, fulfillment and complete explanation in the new covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ (&nbsp;Matthew 26:28; &nbsp;Hebrews 12:24 ). By interpreting the inner spirit of the sacrificial system, by insisting on the unity and holiness of God, by passionate pleas for purity in the people, and especially by teaching the principle of vicarious suffering for sin, the Prophets laid the foundation in thought-forms and in religious atmosphere for such a doctrine of atonement as is presented in the life and teaching of Jesus and as is unfolded in the teaching of His apostles. </p> <p> The personal, parabolic sufferings of Hosea, the remarkable elaboration of the redemption of spiritual Israel through a Suffering Servant of Yahweh and the extension of that redemption to all mankind as presented in Isa 40 through 66, and the same element in such psalms as Ps 22, constitute a key to the understanding of the work of the Christ that unifies the entire revelation of God's righteousness in passing over human sins (&nbsp;Romans 3:24 f). Yet it is remarkable that such a conception of the way of atonement was as far as possible from the general and average Jewish mind when Jesus came. In no sense can the New Testament doctrine of the Atonement be said to be the product of the thought and spirit of the times. </p> <p> 2. The One [[Clear]] Fact </p> <p> However much theologians may disagree as to the rationale of the Atonement, there is, as there can be, no question that Jesus and all His interpreters in the New Testament represent the Atonement between God and men as somehow accomplished through Jesus Christ. It is also an agreed fact in exegesis that Jesus and His apostles understood His death to be radically connected with this Atonement. </p> <p> (1) Jesus Himself teaches that He has come to reveal the Father (&nbsp;John 14:9 ), to recover the lost (&nbsp;Luke 19:10 ), to give life to men (&nbsp;John 6:33; &nbsp;John 10:10 ), to disclose and establish the kingdom of heaven (or of God), gathering a few faithful followers through whom His work will be perpetuated (&nbsp;John 17:2; &nbsp;Matthew 16:13 ); that salvation, personal and social, is dependent upon His person (&nbsp;John 6:53; &nbsp;John 14:6 ). He cannot give full teaching concerning His death but He does clearly connect His sufferings with the salvation He seeks to give. He shows in &nbsp;Luke 4:16 and &nbsp; Luke 22:37 that He understands Isa 52 through 53 as realized in Himself; He is giving Himself (and His blood) a ransom for men (&nbsp; Matthew 20:28; &nbsp;Matthew 26:26; compare &nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:23 ). He was not a mere martyr but gave Himself up willingly, and voluntarily (&nbsp;John 10:17 f; &nbsp; Galatians 2:20 ), in accordance with the purpose of God (&nbsp;Acts 2:23 ), as the Redeemer of the world, and expected that by His lifting up all men would be drawn to Him (&nbsp;John 12:31-33 ). It is possible to explain the attention which the Evangelists give to the death of Jesus only by supposing that they are reflecting the importance which they recall Jesus Himself to have attached to His death. </p> <p> (2) All the New Testament writers agree in making Jesus the center of their idea of the way of salvation and that His death is an essential element in His saving power. This they do by combining Old Testament teaching with the facts of the life and death of the Lord, confirming their conclusion by appeal to the Resurrection. Paul represents himself as holding the common doctrine of Christianity at the time, and from the beginning, when in &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:3 he sums up his teaching that salvation is secured through the death and resurrection of Jesus according to the Scriptures. Elsewhere (&nbsp; Ephesians 2:16 , &nbsp;Ephesians 2:18; &nbsp;1 Timothy 2:5; compare &nbsp;Acts 4:12 ) in all his writings he emfasizes his belief that Jesus Christ is the one [[Mediator]] between God and man, by the blood of His cross (&nbsp;Colossians 1:20; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 2:2 ), removing the sin barrier between God and men. Peter, during the life of Jesus so full of the current Jewish notion that God accepted the Jews <i> de facto </i> , in his later ministry makes Jesus in His death the one way to God (&nbsp;Acts 4:12; &nbsp;1 Peter 1:2 , &nbsp;1 Peter 1:18 , &nbsp;1 Peter 1:19; &nbsp;1 Peter 2:21 , &nbsp;1 Peter 2:24; &nbsp;1 Peter 3:18 ). </p> <p> John has this element so prominent in his Gospel that radical critical opinion questions its authorship partly on that account, while the epistles of John and the Revelation are, on the same ground, attributed to later Greek thought (compare &nbsp;1 John 1:7; &nbsp;1 John 2:2; &nbsp;1 John 3:5; &nbsp;1 John 4:10; &nbsp;Revelation 1:5; &nbsp;Revelation 5:9 ). The Epistle to the Hebrews finds in Jesus the fulfillment and extension of all the sacrificial system of [[Judaism]] and holds that the shedding of blood seems essential to the very idea of remission of sins (&nbsp;Hebrews 9:22; compare &nbsp;Hebrews 2:17; &nbsp;Hebrews 7:26 f; &nbsp; Hebrews 9:24-28 ). </p> <p> 3. How Shall We [[Understand]] the Atonement? </p> <p> When we come to systematize the teaching concerning the Atonement we find, as in all doctrine, that definite system is not offered us in the New Testament, but all system, if it is to have any value for Christianity, must find its materials and principles in the New Testament. [[Proceeding]] in this way some features may be stated positively and finally, while others must be presented interrogatively, recognizing that interpretations may differ. </p> <p> (1) An initial consideration is that the Atonement originates with God who "was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:19 ), and whose love gave Jesus to redeem sinful men (&nbsp;John 3:16; &nbsp;Romans 5:8 , etc.). In all atonement in Old Testament and New Testament the initiative is of God who not only devises and reveals the way to reconciliation, but by means of angels, Prophets, priests and ultimately His only begotten Son applies the means of atonement and persuades men to accept the proffered reconciliation. Nothing in the speculation concerning the Atonement can be more false to its true nature than making a breach between God and His Christ in their attitude toward sinful men. </p> <p> (2) It follows that atonement is fundamental in the nature of God in His relations to men, and that redemption is in the heart of God's dealing in history. The "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (&nbsp;Revelation 13:8 the King James Version and the English Revised Version; compare &nbsp; Revelation 5:5-7 ) is the interpreter of the seven-sealed book of God's providence in history. In Jesus we behold the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world (&nbsp;John 1:29 ). </p> <p> (3) The question will arise in the analysis of the doctrine: How does the death of Christ save us? No specific answer has ever been generally satisfactory. We have numerous theories of the Atonement. We have already intimated that the answer to this question will depend upon our idea of the nature of God, the nature of sin, the content of salvation, the nature of man, and our idea of Satan and evil spirits. We ought at once to dismiss all merely quantitative and commercial conceptions of exchange of merit. There is no longer any question that the doctrines of imputation, both of Adam's sin and of Christ's righteousness, were overwrought and applied by the early theologians with a fatal exclusiveness, without warrant in the Word of God. On the other hand no theory can hold much weight that presupposes that sin is a thing of light consequence in the nature of man and in the economy of God. Unless one is prepared to resist unto blood striving against sin (&nbsp;Hebrews 12:2-4 ), he cannot know the meaning of the Christ. Again, it may be said that the notion that the death of Christ is to be considered apart from His life, eternal and incarnate life, as the atoning work, is far too narrow to express the teaching of the Bible and far too shallow to meet the demands of an ethical conscience. </p> <p> It would serve clearness if we reminded ourselves that the question of how in the Atonement may involve various elements. We may inquire: (a) for the ground on which God may righteously receive the sinner; (b) for the means by which God places the restoration within the reach of the sinner; (c) for the influence by which the sinner is persuaded to accept the reconciliation; (d) for the attitude or exercise of the sinner toward God in Christ wherein he actually enters the state of restored union with God. The various theories have seemed to be exclusive, or at least mutually antagonistic, largely because they have taken partial views of the whole subject and have emphasized some one feature of the whole content. All serious theories partly express the truth and all together are inadequate fully to declare how the [[Daystar]] from on high doth guide our feet into the way of peace (&nbsp;Luke 1:79 ). </p> <p> (4) Another question over which theologians have sorely vexed themselves and each other concerns the extent of the Atonement, whether it is available for all men or only for certain particular, elect ones. That controversy may now be passed by. It is no longer possible to read the Bible and suppose that God relates himself sympathetically with only a part of the race. All segregated passages of Scripture formerly employed in support of such a view have now taken their place in the progressive self-interpretation of God to men through Christ who is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (&nbsp;1 John 2:2 ). No man cometh unto the Father but by Him (&nbsp;John 14:6 ): but whosoever does thus call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (&nbsp;Joel 2:32; &nbsp;Acts 2:21 ). See also Atonement , Day Of; Propitiation; [[Reconciliation]]; Sacrifice . </p> Literature <p> In the vast literature on this subject the following is suggested: Articles by Orr in Hdb; by Mackenzie in Standard Bible Dictionary; in the [[Catholic]] Encyclopedia; in Jewish Encyclopedia; by Simyon in Hastings, Dcg; J. McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement; John Champion, The Living Atonement; W. M. Clow, The Cross in Christian Experience; T. J. Crawford, The Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement; R. W. Dale, The Atonement; J. Denney, The Death of Christ: Its Place and Interpretation in the New Testament, and The Atonement and the Modern Mind; W. P. DuBose, The [[Soteriology]] of the New Testament; P. T. Forsyth, The Cruciality of the Cross; J. Scott Lidgett, The [[Spiritual]] [[Principle]] of the Atonement; Ochenham, The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement; A. Ritschl, The Christian Doctrine of [[Justification]] and Reconciliation, I, II; Riviere, Le dogme de la r <i> é </i> demption; D. W. Simon, Reconciliation by Incarnation; W. L. Walker, The Cross and the Kingdom; various writers, The Atonement and Modern [[Religious]] Thought. </p>