These are weighty words, and will, we believe, receive the assent of all our readers.

In this series we are not attempting the impossible; we have but one item of truth to

examine, and this we must begin to consider in this opening article. The question, then,

before us is: Should the word "atonement" be removed from Rom. 5: 11? Is it not true

that "atonement" means "covering", and that nowhere in the N.T. do we read that Christ

made a "covering" for sin, but rather that He "took away", or "put away" sin, which it

was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to do? Should not the word "atonement",

therefore, be reserved for the O.T. sacrifices, and not be used of the one offering of

The reader will perceive that much is involved in this question, not only the translation

offered in the A.V. but the very use of the word "atonement" in connection with the

sacrifice of Christ. It will also be observed that in all this there is a desire to honour the

Lord, and acknowledge the completeness of His one offering. In fact, it is this that is

partly responsible for the objection to the word "atonement" as being too limited. We

shall discover eventually that the whole problem revolves around the intention of the

Scriptural writers when they used the word kaphar, which primarily meant "to cover",

whether we understand this "covering" to be a mere O.T. expedient or regard it as

foreshadowed, though never provided, by the O.T. sacrifices, and eventually fully

accomplished by Christ. In other words, Does kaphar mean "to cover up" or "to atone"

and "propitiate"? And is the sacrifice of Christ greater than the O.T. types, or different

from them? This most important question will be approached, in this series, in the

following sequence:

Following this sequence, let us devote the space available in the present article to a

consideration of Rom. 5: 11: "By Whom we have now received the atonement." The

marginal note indicates that the word could be rendered "reconciliation" and refers to

verse 10. It is therefore evident that the A.V. translators were perfectly familiar with the

word "reconciliation", and yet deliberately used the word "atonement". It would be easy

to sweep this rendering aside, but such an attitude would hardly do justice to the fact that

the A.V. is the crown of many earlier translations, nor would it exhibit that becoming

modesty, that would attribute to these translators at least as much common sense and

understanding as we ourselves possess. The fact is that the word "atonement" means

"reconciliation", and was in common use at the time of the A.V. translation. It was

selected with deliberate intent, and shows that these translators, rightly or wrongly,

intended the reader to link this one great "reconciling" sacrifice of Rom. 5: with the

"atoning" sacrifices of the Levitical law.  To the translators of the A.V. the word

"atonement" meant no mere "covering", but "reconciliation"--a fact that even a

superficial acquaintance with Elizabethan English makes clear. Surely then we must not

set aside the considered testimony of these translators because they used the language of