ATONEMENT (כָּפַר֒, H4105, cover; ἱλάσκομαι, G2661; καταλλάσσω, G2904, reconcile). Etymologically the word atonement signifies a harmonious relationship or that which brings about such a relationship, i.e., a reconciliation. It is principally used of the reconciliation between God and man effected by the work of Christ. The necessity for such reconciliation is the breach in the primal relationship between the Creator and the creature occasioned by man’s sinful rebellion.

Behind the Eng. word “atonement” there are several Heb. and Gr. words which do not correspond exactly one to another. (The circle of theological ideas is compatible however.) Turning to the Biblical vocabulary, the initial question is the crucial one regarding the meaning of the root kāphar. The fundamental idea of this frequently employed Heb. word seems to be “to cover,” or “to wipe away,” i.e., one’s sin, hence “to expiate,” “to placate.” It is used to describe the effect of the sacrifices at the consecration of the high priest and the altar (Exod 29:36; Lev 8:14; Ezek 43:20); and of the annual sacrifices for the renewal of the consecration of the priest, the people, and the Tabernacle offered on the day called “the Day of Atonement.” It is used also of the sacrifices offered on behalf of the individual, esp. the sin and trespass offerings (Lev 4:20; Num 5:8) when the one sacrificing acknowledges his guilt and defilement. Sometimes tr. “to make reconciliation,” “to purge away,” or “to reconcile,” the term is closely connected with the word hātā, which designates doing that by which atonement is realized. The basic Gr. terms are the various forms of hiláskomai, “to make propitiation,” or “to make a reconciliation,” “to atone for,” and the verb katāllāsso, meaning “to reconcile.”

It is important to note with respect to the sacrifices of the OT that they bear witness to the rupture of fellowship between God and man the sinner, that they acknowledge the righteousness of the divine judgment upon man as sinner, and, finally, that they constitute a provision for man’s forgiveness and reconciliation to God which has been divinely appointed. All of these ideas are basic to the thinking of the writers of the NT. Of course, in the NT the thought is added that the sacrifice of bulls and goats could never finally cleanse the conscience from the defilement of sin and appease an offended deity. Therefore the OT sacrifices have their fulfillment in the death of Christ, who is the true Lamb of God (John 1:36) whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood (Rom 3:23-26); it is He who has obtained eternal redemption for mankind by His own blood, having entered once for all into the holy place not made with hands (Heb 9:11).

One may then say that sacrifice is the basic NT category used to describe the death of Christ. Because this is true, atonement—which the OT sacrifices wrought in a ceremonial way—is the term commonly employed by theologians to describe the work of Christ. By the same token, because the meaning of Christ’s death is central in the NT, a much wider range of Biblical teaching than that bearing on sacrifice has been included in the theological discussion of atonement. What the Scriptures have to say about the nature of God, the significance of the law, the character of sin, the power of demonic forces, the meaning of salvation, and the final eschatological redemption of the world—all these are Scriptural themes which have been more or less central in the various “theories” of the Atonement.

1. OT Day of Atonement. Before elaborating this larger congeries of ideas involved in interpreting the meaning of the death of Christ as an atonement, one must deal in a cursory way with the meaning of atonement in the OT, which is foundational to the NT doctrine of Christ’s atoning work. The crucial material in this regard concerns the Day of Atonement, which has aptly been called the “Good Friday of the OT.” Of the several passages alluding to this day (cf. Lev 23:26-32; Num 18; 29:7-11), Leviticus 16 is of capital importance. There is a detailed set of instructions, given by the Lord to Moses, concerning the preparations and ceremonies enacted on this day. The distinctive ceremonial involves many details, some of which are no longer perspicuous, but it is eminently clear that on this day there was the highest exercise of the high priest’s mediatorial office. Being a sinner himself and representing a sinful people, he discarded his gorgeous high priestly garments and, having bathed himself, assumed an attire which was destitute of all ornament as fitting a suppliant suing for forgiveness. This attire was becomingly white, symbolizing the purity required of those who would enter into the presence of the Holy One of Israel. Being thus prepared and properly accoutered, he performed the sacrifices which climax the whole system of purification in Leviticus. By these sacrifices, which involved the confession of sin (the priest laid his hands on the head of the scapegoat, confessing Israel’s transgressions, so putting them upon the head of the goat, Lev 16:21), and the sprinkling of the shed blood seven times toward the mercy seat where the presence of the Lord dwelt, the priest made atonement for the sins of the people. Thus, by a ceremonial act at the central sanctuary, peace and fellowship with the God of the covenant were restored. The entire removal of the cause of God’s alienation was symbolically set forth, both by the giving of the life of one animal and the sending of another into the wilderness.

2. Atonement in the NT. It is this ceremonial of the Day of Atonement which constitutes the principal paradigm for the author of Hebrews in his interpretation of the death of Christ. In his use of the Levitical materials to illumine the meaning of Christ’s death, one has a striking example of the continuity-in-movement of redemptive history. What Christ did is analogous to what the high priest did in the OT. The author of this epistle knew nothing of the approach which contrasts the supposed OT view of God, as an angry Deity appeased by the shedding of blood, with the NT God of Jesus, who as a loving Father dispenses the favor of forgiveness freely to all His erring children. Rather, without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins (Heb 9:22). All the symbols and ceremonies in the OT teaching the Atonement find their true meaning and fulfillment in the new covenant in Christ’s blood (Matt 26:28; Heb 12:24). He is the suffering servant of the Lord who brings redemption to all mankind. Along with this fundamental continuity of redemptive revelation there is discontinuity, a change brought about by the movement of history. The covenant in Christ’s blood is a new covenant. The writer to the Hebrews sharply contrasts the work of the high priest in the OT with that of Christ in the NT, particularly in terms of its efficacy. Whereas every year the ritual of the Day of Atonement was re-enacted as the priest entered the Holy of Holies with the blood of the appointed victim, Christ has entered once and for all into the true sanctuary, not made with hands, into the presence of God, to make intercession for us with His own blood. He has secured a lasting deliverance for mankind. Access to God is no longer granted to the high priest alone, who himself was limited to restrictions of time, place, and circumstance. Rather Christ, the great High Priest, has opened a new and living way to God, a way by which all whose hearts are purged from the guilt of sin may at all times have free access to the Father. Having made atonement for sin, He has reconciled man to God (cf. Heb 7-10).

The same basic interpretation of Christ’s death prevails throughout the NT. According to Paul, one is justified by the blood of Christ (Rom 5:9), for God has set forth Christ to be a propitiation (expiation, RSV) through faith in His blood (Rom 3:25). Both Jews and Gentiles have been reconciled to God by the cross (Eph 2:16). Christ has made peace by the blood of His cross, reconciling man to God in the body of His flesh through death (Col 1:20-22). Christ suffered for all, bearing our sins in His own body on the tree, healing us by His stripes (1 Pet 2:24; cf. Isa 53). Therefore one can understand the saying of the Lord that the Son of Man came to give His life a ransom for many (Matt 20:28), and join with the redeemed in the Book of Revelation in ascribing praise to Him “who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood” (Rev 1:5, 6 RSV).

3. The doctrine of the Atonement.

a. Its reason. In this all too brief survey of the Biblical materials, we shall venture to outline a doctrine of the Atonement, touching upon the questions commonly discussed by the theologians. The first point to be made is that the Atonement originated with God; it was He who provided it. However one may trace the development of blood sacrifice among the Hebrews, there can be no doubt that in both the priestly and prophetic writings of the OT it is God who appointed the various rites, giving to Moses and those who followed him instructions concerning the manner in which they were to be rendered and the benefits which they secured to the worshiper. So it is in the NT. The atonement for sin provided by the death of Christ had its source in God. It is He who “was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5:19). The ultimate reason for this initiative is not to be found in any necessity laid upon Him, but in His free and sovereign love. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). This is the ultimate of revelation; i.e., the Atonement finds its ultimate explanation in an unfathomable urge in God toward His sinful and alienated creatures. He has been pleased, for reasons known only to Himself, to set His love upon those who are unworthy. The Lord has loved men with an everlasting love (Jer 31:3), and in due time commended that love to them in that while they were yet sinners Christ died for them (Rom 5:8). This, then, is the final reason for the Atonement. When Scripture says that God is love (1 John 4:7, 8), it teaches that love is no incidental aspect of God’s being, something which He may choose to be or not to be at His pleasure. Rather, it is the essence of His being. Though people can discover no reason in themselves, no value or worth which would evoke that love, yet He loves them because He is God who is love. The Lord says that He set His love upon His people, not because they were greater in number than any other—for they were the fewest—but because He loved them (Deut 7:6-8). That is, He loved them because He loved them; the reason for His love is hidden in Himself whose name is, “I am who I am” (Exod 3:14).

The principal word which the NT uses for the divine love is agape. Significantly, eros, the virile word for love in Gr. philosophy, does not occur. The most plausible explanation is that erotic love, whether it describes the relation of the sexes or, as in Plato, the aspiration of the soul for the ideas, is the love of the worthy, a love based on value. By contrast, God’s covenant love for His people (agape), which moved Him to provide an atonement for sin, is a love for the unworthy. Even when His people, like an unfaithful wife, went whoring after other gods, the Lord loved them still (Hos 11:8, 9). “In this is love,” wrote John, “not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). This “love divine, all loves excelling” cannot be frustrated at last; it is a love, says Paul, from which nothing can separate us (Rom 8:38, 39). The reason for this is that this love is not dependent upon anything in man; it is a love which is sovereign and free.

b. Its nature. If love is the reason for the Atonement, one may still ask why love should have taken this mode of fulfilling its urgent purpose. In answer to this question, the ancient fathers of the Church placed great stress on a saying of Jesus recorded in Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28. “For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (lutron) for many.” To ransom someone means to redeem him by purchasing his release through the payment of a price. It was assumed that Christ gave His soul, in lieu of man’s, to the devil and paid the ransom price of the delivery from his powers. The theory was that since the first parents had sold their souls to the devil, he had a legal claim over men, which God, in justice, must satisfy. Hence, Jesus gave His soul as the ransom price for man’s release and “descended into hell,” as the Apostles’ Creed says. But having kept His bargain, it was impossible for Satan to hold Him in hell. The third day He rose in triumph, taking with Him all whom He had redeemed.

Of course Jesus did not say that He came to give His life a ransom to the devil, and nowhere does the NT, in elaborating this redemption motif, make such an affirmation. It is true that the concept of ransom presupposes bondage, the need of release, and the payment of a price to obtain this release. But the primary emphasis of Scripture is upon what men are redeemed from, rather than to whom the ransom is paid. The overall implication of Scripture is that Christ’s atoning work finds its ultimate objective in God; it is God who is reconciled. It is most natural, when thinking of Christ’s death as a ransom, to assume that the payment is to God in the sense that men owe Him an uncompromised obedience, a debt which sinners cannot render, but one which is paid by Christ on man’s behalf, through His own obedience unto death “even death on a cross” (Phil 2:8).

Though Scripture does not spell out a “ransom-paid-to-the-devil” theory, it does teach that the redeemed are safe from the power of the devil; this is the truth contained in the ancient or “classic view” of the Atonement as Christus Victor. The devil has sinners under his power; as a cruel taskmaster he drives them to sin. But Christ by His death redeemed man from this thralldom. (Note Bunyan’s theological exactitude in the Holy War, in describing how Diabolus began to tremble at the prospect of Emmanuel’s imminent victory and clandestinely stole out to the gate of the city by night to hold a colloquy with the Prince. His claim to a right over the city of Mansoul was repudiated, and his effort to strike a bargain rebuffed. He was denounced as a usurper and forced to abdicate.) Hebrews 2:14 says that Christ partook of mankind’s flesh and blood, that through death He might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil. Paul referred to the triumph which Christ obtained over principalities and powers at the cross, making an open display of them (Col 2:15).

The question concerning why God’s love expresses itself by way of atonement, which the ancient Fathers answered in terms of the ransom theory, was deeply probed by Anselm of Canterbury (late 11th, early 12th cent.) in his classic work Cur Deus Homo. His answer was that though prompted by His love to redeem us, God must do so in a manner consistent with His justice. The necessity of the Atonement, then, is an inference from the character of God. Sin is a revolt against God, and He must inevitably react against it with wrath. Sin really creates an awful liability and the inexorable demands of the divine justice must be met. The truth that God is love does not stand alone in the Bible. The God of the Bible keeps wrath for His enemies (Nah 1:2); he is “of purer eyes than to behold evil” (Hab 1:13). The God of Jesus is to be feared as one “who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28). “The wrath of God,” wrote Paul, “is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men” (Rom 1:18).

Therefore the death of Christ is the way in which God shows that He is righteous in forgiving sins and justifying him who has faith in Jesus (Rom 3:24-26). God justly demands satisfaction for one’s sins, and since by Christ’s death satisfaction is given, the sinner is forgiven and the punishment remitted. The essence of Anselm’s theory of the Atonement, vicarious or substitutionary satisfaction, is the theory which has dominated the orthodox tradition.

The basic objections to this view drive one back to a kind of theological watershed, and it would take one far beyond the scope of this article to explore all aspects of the question. For one, it is argued that the idea of satisfaction is inimical to the fundamental insight that God is love, a sort of vestigial remnant from the imperfect view of the angry Deity portrayed in the OT. Furthermore, it is alleged, the notion of vicarious suffering is unethical. How could someone else merit the divine favor for men? Anselm, it must be said, never contemplated these questions seriously. For him it was assumed, on the basis of Scripture, that the character of God requires atonement. As for vicarious atonement, he reasoned that only the God-man could render such atonement, since it is man who has offended and God against whom the offense was directed.

In the last analysis, the question is whether one believes the fundamental thought forms of Scripture to be a permanent and final revelation. For all the limitations in Anselm’s formulation, it appears to this writer that he grasped an essential aspect of the teaching of Scripture. According to Isaiah 53, the Suffering Servant was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed. In the same vein is Paul’s affirmation that He “who knew no sin” was made sin for us, “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor 5:21 KJV). Christ was not made a sinner in the sense of being inwardly polluted. Rather He was reckoned a sinner; man’s sin was imputed to Him, even as His righteousness was imputed to men. In Himself He bore the condemnation of sin so that to those who are in Christ Jesus there is now no condemnation (Rom 8:1). He was made “a curse for us,” in order to make man the righteousness of God in Him (Gal 3:13). Christ rendered a vicarious satisfaction for sin. It was not by substituting something in the place of the penalty, but rather by a vicarious enduring of the penalty. This is the essential point in Anselm’s theory.

It should be noted that Anselm conceived of the satisfaction rendered by Christ solely in terms of His death; Calvary was the one great supererogatory act of history which relieved God of any necessity to punish the sinner. It is true that Scripture places the emphasis on Christ’s death, but it should not be overlooked that His death, according to Scripture, is the climax of His life of perfect obedience. “He...became obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil 2:8). “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered” (Heb 5:8). In Romans 5:12-19 there is an express reference to Christ’s one act of obedience, in contrast to the disobedience of the first Adam, an act of obedience by which the many are made righteous. And so Christ becomes the perfect High Priest, having not only removed the sanction of the broken law by being made a curse, but also having fulfilled the requirements of the law by His sinless life, thus achieving a perfect righteousness.

A third theory of the Atonement, sometimes referred to as the “moral influence theory,” has its roots in the teaching of Abelard (1079-1142) and its flower in Protestant liberalism. According to this view, the basic meaning of atonement is what Schleiermacher has called “moral uplift,” a new attitude toward life. There is no objective enmity on God’s part; Christ’s death has nothing to do with atonement in the sense of removal of divine alienation. Rather, Christ’s faithfulness, even unto death, revealed the divine love and dissipated man’s mistrust of God which is based on a misunderstanding of God’s character. Thus men are justified by Christ’s death, in the sense that through Calvary love is stirred up in men’s hearts and they are led to repent of their sins.

Judged by the teaching of Scripture, this view is defective and inadequate; the very essence of the doctrine of the Atonement is lost. Yet there is an essential element of truth, for the death of Christ has a profound influence on the beneficiaries. Because God is reconciled to the sinner in Christ, men are admonished to be reconciled to God. The Christian response to the death of Christ is to “rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation” (cf. Rom 5:8-11). Hence Paul can describe his work in the beautiful figure of a ministry of reconciliation. As an ambassador of Christ who had been entrusted with the message of reconciliation, he besought all men, on behalf of Christ, to be reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:18-21). If the Atonement is to become a personal reality in the individual life, there must be this radical, inward change, the response of love to love on the part of the sinner.

c. Its perfection. There are many aspects of the Biblical doctrine of the Atonement which may be included under this heading. Historically Roman Catholics and Protestants have been divided over the need of rendering a temporal satisfaction for post-baptismal sins, the former teaching that such satisfaction is rendered either in penance or purgatory. Protestants believe that Christ has rendered a full and complete satisfaction for all sins, so that such a teaching impinges the perfection of Christ’s atoning work. Protestants have also urged the perfection of Christ’s work against the sacrament of the mass which is allegedly a real, though not literal, reiteration of the sacrifice of Calvary. While they believe that the efficacy of Christ’s atonement is continuously applied throughout the centuries, they do not believe that it is possible to enhance its efficacy by a constant repetition. In fact, the writer of Hebrews scores the inadequacy of the older order in that the sacrifices of the Aaronic priesthood had constantly to be repeated, bringing no final solution to the sin problem. But now Christ has once and for all put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, and by this one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified (Heb 9:26; 10:14).

Speaking of the perfection of the Atonement, a word should be said about divine healing. Healing is commonly associated with faith, but ultimately it has to do with the Atonement. “Faith healing” presupposes that in the Atonement our Lord contemplated the body as well as the soul. So those who stress healing of the body, if they spell out their doctrine beyond a general faith in God, would say that the faith which heals is a faith in the Savior who Himself “took our infirmities and bore our diseases” (Matt 8:17). Not to trust Christ for deliverance from the afflictions of the body, as well as the sins of the soul, is to impugn the perfection of His atoning work. Evangelicals have never doubted the efficacy of the Atonement for the whole man, affirming the resurrection of the body, so that Christ’s death becomes the “death of deaths,” for all who die in Him. But the obvious fact that all men die in a physical way, even those who proclaim faith healing, has lead the Church as a whole to conclude that the redemptive benefits of the Atonement, as far as the body is concerned, must await the eschaton, when there shall be no more curse, neither sorrow nor crying nor any such thing (Rev 21:4).

d. Its extent. Perhaps the most discussed aspect of the Atonement today is its extent, which is also an aspect of its perfection. In the older Calvinistic-Arminian debate this question eventuated ultimately in the same result. Not all men are finally redeemed by Christ’s death, but only those who believe (Arminians), who are the elect of God (Calvinists). For those who die outside of Christ, there is only eternal separation from God.

In contemporary theology there has been much emphasis placed on the universal or cosmic scope of the Atonement, and in many instances this universalism advocates in a forthright manner the restitution of every fallen, alienated creature to the fellowship of God. Unlike the older universalism which made all religions equally valid efforts to have fellowship with God, the new universalism is confessedly Christian; men are reconciled to God only by Christ. But all men are reconciled, and sooner or later they will be made to realize it. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29); God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Cor 5:19); in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor 15:22); for He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). This strand of universalism is stressed as pointing to the time of the restitution of all things (apokatastasis) of which Peter spoke in the first Christian sermon (Acts 3:21). It is sometimes admitted that all men do not depart this life reconciled to God. But eventually they will be, it is averred, even though the reconciliation be delayed until they are “deep in eternity.” However there is no clear warranty in Scripture for this affirmation. In fact the uniform thrust of Scripture, for those who have come under the shadow of the cross, is that “now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2). As for those who have not heard, they are described by Paul as “having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12). Unless one is ready, therefore, rather radically to amend the apostolic tradition and eliminate hell, it would seem that one must not press the universal language of Scripture absolutely. While one could desire that the Atonement should embrace all men absolute ly, it would appear that in the minds of the writers of Scripture the Atonement is universal in the sense that men from every nation, tribe, people, and tongue shall one day stand before the Lamb clothed in white with palms of victory in their hands (Rev 7:9). It is in this sense, then, that one should conceive the perfection of Christ’s atoning work. See also Salvation.

Bibliography G. Aulén, Christus Victor (1951); J. Denney, The Death of Christ (1951); L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (1955); G. C. Berkouwer, The Work of Christ (1965).