As I've been teaching about the atonement provided by Jesus in offering Himself on the cross, I occasionally have been asked, "Isn't the atonement an Old Testament concept?" I understand why people ask this and, in fact, used to tell people that it is only an Old Testament teaching but a closer look at Scripture reveals something different.The word "atonement" in the Old Testament most certainly refers to the pouring out of the blood of the sacrifice on the altar. This atonement covered Israel's sins for the past year and its efficacy was good until the next year when the priest had to offer another sacrifice on the Day of Atonement.
Like other acts that foreshadowed Jesus, the atonement was imperfect and had no ability to permanently solve the problem of man's sin. However, even in the Old Testament our God of Grace gave the people hope for the day that would come when the Perfect Sacrifice would atone for the sins of the people, once and for all. The Old Covenant atonement was imperfect because it could only cover people's sin but the New Covenant atonement would take away the sin of the people forever!
In speaking of the Messiah who would one day come, he wrote: "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place" (Daniel 9:24, emphasis added).
Daniel wrote that the Messiah would "make an atonement for iniquity." In other words, he said that Jesus would be the perfect expression of the atonement that the less than perfect OT sacrifices could never be.
In Romans 5:11, Paul plainly says that Jesus did just that in offering Himself for our sin. The King James Version makes it clear: " And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." So there it is, made clear that the perfect atonement was facilitated on our behalf by Jesus Christ.
The confusion about this matter comes from the fact that (to my knowledge), the King James Version is the only one that actually uses the word "atonement" in the New Testament Scriptures. The Greek word used here in Romans 5 is the word, katallage and is translated as "reconciliation" or "reconciling" in other places. (See Romans 11:15, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19) The primary meaning of the word is "exchange" and refers to the way moneychangers exchanged one form of currency for another.
So the atonement is indeed a New Testament concept and, in fact, is a great word to describe what missionary Hudson Taylor called "the exchanged life." Jesus exchanged our sin for His righteousness. He exchanged our lives in Adam for His Life in the Father. He is the Atonement for us and is the fulfillment of every Old Covenant incidence when the blood of a less than perfect sacrifice was poured out, pointing to the One who would bring in a New Covenant by offering Himself as the Perfect Sacrifice and in so doing make atonement for us all, reconciling us to our Father.
Good one, Steve! I see that with the KJV a lot. Wonderful how a word-look in a concordance can make thing clear, eh?
ReplyDeleteThanks Steve
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing this forward!
There is a book by T F Torrance called "The Atonement" The Person and Work of Jesus. It is about God as God to us, and God as man for us in the finished person and work of Jesus, by the Spirit for the Father. In the all humanity of Jesus where indeed all are included we can by His faith learn to be one in sharing and participation with Him, in His life, for we no longer live!
Also a great book by Torrance called ''The Mediation of Christ' - excellent work!
ReplyDeletewould you kindly explain the difference between "atonement" and "propitiation"?
ReplyDeleteGood question, Lance. "Atonement" refers to the exchange our sin for His righteousness, thus making us one with Him. Some have described it as "At-one-ment"
ReplyDeletePeople who see God through a judicial lens often understand propitiation to mean "appeasement" as in God's anger for sin being appeased by Jesus. "Appeasement" certainly is one way of seeing that word and those who believe God demands punishment from somebody insist that's the only way to see it. But, others have seen the word in a different way. The word "propitiation" can also refer to the place where the atonement occurred. For instance, when the translators of the Septuagint came to the phrase "mercy seat" they used the word "propitiation" as an equivalent word. (For those who may not know, the Septuagint is a translation of the Bible that translated the Old Testament (written in Hebrew) to the Greek of the New Testament.)
So "propitiation" can refer to the place of the atonement and doesn't have to mean appeasement. That understanding of the word better aligns itself with the grace of God to many of us and certainly creates no tension in translation nor interpretation to come to that conclusion.
The key is that our understanding of the meaning of words inevitably will be influenced by our underlying concept of God. This isn't a case of redefining words but instead simply pointing out that there are other ways to understand words which are intellectually honest and still maintain sound hermeneutics. Bottom line - there's more than one way to look at something.
I appreciate your questions, Lance. They're always good ones.
ok, i see what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteand, as a i look up this "propitiation"/ "mercy seat" word, i see it in Rom 3:25 and Heb 9:5.
confusion arises because there are other words also translated "propitiation", words that seem to come from the same root as the word you are talking about. four instances of these words in the NASB are Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10 and Luke 18:13 (where it is translated 'be merciful'). would you kindly explain these words?
i agree about the meaning of words. it is my opinion that the meaning of many words have, very likely, been compromised by Old Covenant thinking.
the word for 'propitiation' that also means 'mercy seat' is only used twice in the NT as far as i can tell. would you kindly explain the other instances of 'propitiation'?
ReplyDeleteSorry, Lance. I don't understand your question. If it's only used twice, what other instances are you referring to? It has been a long day so forgive me if I'm just "dense" tonight :)
ReplyDeleteno problem. i think it was long, long day for many of our friends today.
ReplyDeletei looked up the word 'propitiation' in the NASB at crosswalk.com:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=propitiation&t=nas
i got the following verses:
Romans 3:25 - Hilasterion - translated as 'mercy seat' in Hebrews 9:5
Hebrews 2:17 - Hilaskomai - translated as 'be merciful' in Luke 18:13
1 John 2:2 & 1 John 4:10 - Hilasmos
you were talking about the 'mercy seat' as the place atonement was made ('propitiation' as you explained it to me); from what i see, that particular use would only apply to Rom 3:25 or Heb 9:5. the other 4 uses of this root 'Hilas' do not seem to ever be translated 'mercy seat'; how do you approach these other 4 uses?
Steve - well done. I will take exception with one point. The so-called "money changers" were not converting currency (not a currency exchange), they were accepting money in exchange for what would later be known as "indulgences" or a fake form of atonement for sin. For example, people could pay for a clay pigeon and have their sins forgiven. It was blasphemous and theft. This is what infuriated Jesus. I can see how the original language might be confusing.
ReplyDelete