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".

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.

reference disappears.

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?