Now we can easily trip here. It does not follow that those who say that the atonement

is not a N.T. doctrine deny the sacrificial work of Christ. What they mean is something

like this: "The conception of the O.T. atonement is not full enough to set forth the actual

work of Christ. That merely covered sin, He puts it away." If the Hebrew conception

does really mean a mere covering up, then we are sure that Christ's work was something

infinitely more blessed and perfect.  We do not, however, believe this is a true

presentation of the O.T. doctrine, and therefore reject it. On the other hand it does not

follow that because the one word "atonement" is expunged by the R.V. that the doctrine

itself is not found in the N.T. This we would prove in two ways. (1) by the presence of

the actual word, and (2) by the presence of the results that alone follow it.  By the

presence of the actual word we mean of course the Greek equivalent, and not the English.

We must anticipate our O.T. investigation so far as to say that "mercy-seat" is from

the Hebrew kapporeth, from kaphar, which is rendered "atonement" 72 times. Now the

Greek translation of kapporeth is hilasterion, which is found in Heb. 9: 5. We read in

Rom. 3: 25 that "God has set forth (Christ) as a propitiation through faith in His blood",

and the word propitiation is hilasterion ("mercy-seat").  Moreover, hilaskomai and

hilasmos are Septuagint renderings also of kaphar, and these occur in I John 2: 2 and

4: 10 where the epistle is not speaking of redemption, but cleansing by blood; of those

who walk in the light, and who have an Advocate with the Father. Hence the word

"propitiation" in these two passages speaks of atonement and atoning blood.  So

hilaskomai is used in  Heb. 2: 17,  where the R.V. alters the A.V. rendering to

"propitiation". Here we have a series of definite references to the O.T. doctrine of

atonement. But more than that, when the Lord used the word "ransom" in Matt. 20: 28,

He used a word which is used several times to translate kopher, viz., lutron. So also the

words katharizo and katharismos have undoubted reference to the atoning work of

Christ, being used by the LXX to translate kaphar, and are used in such passages as the

In each of the above passages one would be justified, with the O.T. rendering in view,

to put the words "make atonement" where "purge" and "cleanse" occur. Moreover,

hagiazo is used to translate kaphar, and brings in the many passages which speak of

sanctification in connection with the blood Christ. To these examples must be added the

effects of atonement such as "access", "fellowship", "acceptance", "made nigh", etc.,

which run through the teaching of the N.T. Surely we need go no further to find our

answer to the question, Is atonement a N.T. doctrine, and does it describe adequately

one phase of the work of Christ? If Christ be a propitiation, if He gave His life a ransom,

if His blood cleanses and sanctifies the redeemed, then undoubtedly the O.T. doctrine of

atonement as surely as the O.T. doctrine of redemption finds its fulfillment in the

sacrifice and priestly ministry of Christ.