| || |The Berean Expositor Volume 17 - Page 99 of 144 Index | Zoom | |
The one offering of Christ, the once shed blood is both our redemption and our
atonement, both our way out and our way in, but that does not mean that we are to be
careless in the use of these solemn terms, or to allow false argument to be built up from
their confusion. Gen. 3: and 4: present a similar sequence, Gen. 3: indicating
redemption, and Gen. 4: atonement.
We do not intend making this a lengthy article, nor dealing with any other feature.
We shall have to give attention to the teaching of both Old and New Testaments
respecting the atonement, and the related offerings, but that we must do in another paper.
Let us remember with gratitude the exodos and the eisodos, the leading out and the
leading in, that are ours through the blood of Christ. We trust that the reader will,
moreover, realize that we are here using the word "atonement" in a very general way, as
a convenient term to set over against "redemption".
Atonement: a covering by cancellation.
pp. 118 - 124
The essential difference between redemption and atonement has been discussed in
preceding articles. It will, however, be convenient to include the study of the doctrine of
atonement as a branch of the wider theme of redemption. This we now propose to do. A
glance at the concordance reveals a long column of references under the word
"atonement" for the O.T., but one reference only for the N.T., and if our concordance
notifies us of the changes made in the R.V., we shall find that even that one N.T.
Atonement: is it a N.T. doctrine?
The alteration of the word "atonement" in the A.V. of Rom. 5: 11 is justified on the
ground of correct interpretation and the avoidance of false connections. The ordinary
reader would naturally assume that Rom. 5: 11 referred back to the O.T. equivalents.
The Greek word translated atonement here is katallage, but whilst the LXX version uses
more than twenty Greek words to translate the Hebrew word "atonement", it never uses
katallage. Apart from this possibility of making a false connection, atonement is quite as
good a rendering as reconciliation, for the English word at the time of and preceding the
A.V. bore the meaning at-one-ment, a meaning abundantly proved by more than one
passage in Shakespeare. What does seem to be a pity is that the word was employed in
the O.T. It is too deeply imbedded to think of removing or altering it, so we must rid our
minds of anything that pertains merely to the English word, and seek the meaning
warranted by studying the original. Before we do so, however, we must answer the
question that arises, Is atonement a N.T. doctrine?