ATONEMENT (I)
This term appears in the NT, in the KJV, only in the book of Hebrews (Heb. 1:17; 10:6, 8). In the first passage it should be translated “propitiation,” as the RVR77 correctly does.
In the other two passages, the term “atonements” does not appear in the original, but is added to give meaning. However, although the term “atonement” as such is not found in the NT, it is constantly found in its true sense, even if it is not expressly mentioned.
“Redemption”, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree”, “our Passover, which is Christ, was already sacrificed for us”, “he was handed over for our transgressions”, “he became a curse for us”, “he appeared to take away our sins.
In the Old Testament the term atonement is continually found, but never propitiation. But the same word, “kaphar,” although generally translated “atone,” is also used as “forgive” (Ps. 65:3; 79:9); “reconcile” (Lev. 16:6); “annul” (Is. 28:18).
“Kaphar” literally means “to cover”, with several prepositions that go with this term; the most commonly used is “about.”
Thus, when it is said “atonement for him” or “for his sin,” he or his sin is covered: atonement is made for him or for his sin. The atonement was made “on” the horns of the altar: the meaning is “atonement by.”
By the altar of incense, atonement was not made on him but “through” him. Likewise “by” the sanctuary, and by or about Aaron and his house; The preposition used is “al.”
The same thing happens with the two goats of Lv. 16. Sins were seen on the sinless goat, and atonement was made through it with respect to the sins that were confessed by laying hands on the other goat, which was left loose in the wilderness.
The “how” of the atonement is not said in this chapter, but it is effected by making the two goats truly one, because the object of this ceremony was to show that sins were really laid upon him (i.e., as a shadow). of Christ, upon whom our sins have really been laid), and that the sins were carried away, where they could not be seen, nor ever found again (cf. Mi. 7:19; Ps. 103:12).
If we let our thoughts, led by God, enter the train of Jewish thought, there is no difficulty in the preposition “al.”
In any case, the difficulty arises from the fact that the preposition “for” in Spanish presents the person concerned to the mind; “On” is merely the place where it was performed, as on an altar; On the other hand, “al” refers to the removal through the “kaphar” of that which was on the thing “a” on which the rite of atonement was performed.
It is clear that the goat was not the person interested, nor was it about it merely as a place. It was what sins were placed upon, and had to be taken out and eliminated.
The atonement referred to them thus being placed on the goat. As has been said, the how is not explained, but the all-important fact is stated that they were removed from Israel and from before God.
The blood or life that was needed was presented to God with the other, and that was what really took them away; but he did much more. What occurs with the first goat is the first aspect. This twofold aspect of the work of the atonement is of immense importance and interest:
(A) The presentation of the blood to God on the mercy seat (Lev. 16:15), and
(B) the taking away of sins (Lev. 16:21, 22). “Kaphar,” “make atonement,” appears in Ex. 29; 30; 32; Lv. 1; 4-10; 12; 14-17; 19; 23; No. 5; 6; 8; fifteen; 16; 25; 28; 29; 31; 2 Sam. 21:3; 1 Chron. 6:49; 2 Chron. 29:24; Neh. 10:33.
A brief consideration of other Hebrew words may be helpful.
“Nasa,” “lift up,” and thereby forgive, lift up sins by removing them from the mind of the offended person, or show favor by lifting up the face of the favored person (Ps. 4:6).
“Kasah”, “cover”, as in Ps. 32:1, where sin is “covered”; sometimes used with “al”, as in Pr. 10:12: “Love will cover all faults”, forgive: they are out of sight and out of mind.
The person is contemplated with love, instead of sins being contemplated with offense.
But in these mentioned words the idea of atonement is not found, but rather the side of the offender is considered, being considered in grace, whatever the cause: it may be his need for atonement or simply, as in Proverbs, for benignity.
We also have “salach”, “sorry”. It is used in the sense of “kaphar”, as in Lv. 4:20. But ‘kaphar’ always has a distinctive and important idea connected with it.
Consider sin as before God, and it is a ransom, when not literally used as sums of money; “kapphoret” is the mercy seat.
And although it involves forgiveness, purification from sin, it always has God in mind, not merely the fact of forgiveness given to the sinner; It has the aspect of atonement and propitiation.
And this is implicit in the idea of purification from sin, or making purification from sin; it is in God’s sight as that by which He has been offended, and which He rejects and judges.
There was a “piaculum”, “a sacrifice of atonement”, something that gave satisfaction for the person who had fallen into guilt, in something that offended God, and that He, by his very nature, could not tolerate.
This concept, among the pagans, who attributed human passions or uncontrolled revenge to their gods, was naturally perverted to agree with their ideas.
They were trying to appease the anger of an angry and vengeful being. But God does have a nature that is offended by sin.
A holy nature, not naturally impulsive; but the majesty of holiness has to be maintained. Sin is not to be treated with indifference, and God’s love provides provision for redemption.
It is the Lamb of God who takes on the work and brings it to its end. God’s perfect love and justice, the moral order of the universe and our souls through faith, are all maintained through the work of the cross.
Propitiation, atonement for sin, has been made through the perfect love not only of God the Father, the Giver, but of Him who, through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without blemish to God.
The aspect of the atonement is in relation to God, while its effect applies to us in cleansing and justification, although it goes far beyond that.
The atonement is more the satisfaction itself that is given, the “piaculum”, that which removes anger, and is offered, taking the place of the offender, so that he is free. And here the name “kopher” comes in to give greater clarity.
It is translated “ransom” (Ex. 30:12) and “bribery” (1 Sam. 12:3; Am. 5:12). Thus, in Ex. 21:30 a “kopher” (translated “ransom”) is imposed on a man to save his life when his ox would have killed another person; however, in Num. 35:31 no kopher can be taken for the life of a murderer; This is because (Num. 35:33) the land cannot be atoned for (kaphar) from the blood shed except by the blood of the one who shed it.
Here it is clear what the meaning of “kopher” and “kaphar” is. Appropriate satisfaction is offered to the opinion of the one who is offended and the one who judges; and through this the offense is washed away, there is purification, forgiveness, and favor, according to the one who has knowledge of evil.
A consideration can be added about that of the two birds (Lev. 14:4-7) in their contrast with the two goats (Lev. 16:7-10). The object of the two little birds was the purification of the leper; It was the application to the contaminated man, not the “kopher”, ransom, presented to God.
It would not have been possible except on the basis of the shedding of blood and the resulting satisfaction, but the immediate action was purification: that is why water enters in addition to the blood.
A small bird was slaughtered over running water in a clay cup, and the live bird and the other objects had to be soaked in the blood of the dead bird with the waters; The man was sprinkled with that, leaving the little live bird free, far from the death with which he had nevertheless been associated, thus remaining free.
The Spirit, with the power of the word, makes available the death of Christ in the power of his resurrection. There was no laying on of hands on the little bird, as was the case with the goat: it was identified with the dead bird, and then let go.
The running water, or living water, in the clay vessel, is undoubtedly a symbol of the power of the Spirit and the word in human nature, characterizing the form of truth, although death and blood must be introduced; All nature, its pomp and vanity, remain submerged there.
The leper is purified and can, consequently, worship. It is not a question here of the atonement itself, having to do with God, although it is certainly based on it, as is indicated by the death of the little bird.
It is about the purification of man in death to the flesh, but in the power of the resurrection known in Christ, who once died to sin. Likewise, neither does the chestnut heifer (Num. 19:1-22) by itself indicate an act of atonement, but rather of purification.
The basis was laid on the slaughter and burning of the cow. Sin had been, as it were, consumed therein, and the blood was sprinkled seven times before the tabernacle of the congregation.
When Christ died, sin was totally consumed for His people in the fire of judgment, and all the value of the blood was left before God where He communicated with the people.
Everything had already been cancelled, but in his pilgrimage through the desert the believer becomes contaminated, and he has to be purified.
The testimony that sin has long been canceled by Christ, by suffering what was the fruit of sin, is applied by the living power of the Holy Spirit and the word, and thus the pilgrim is purified.
But the act of purification is not, in itself, atonement; for atonement, the offering is presented to God. It is a “kopher”, a rescue, a reparation, to satisfy the infinite and absolute perfection of the nature and character of God, which is fully manifested here.
This is why atonement is made, and the Day of Atonement itself is called “kippurim.” The priest made atonement for sins; This atonement had the double aspect of presenting the blood before God inside the Holy Sacrament, to give him satisfaction in his being, and of removing the sins of his people, taking them far away where they could never be found.
We have to keep in mind the difference between an entire veil and sacrifices repeated over and over again versus a torn veil and a sacrifice offered once and for all. This is a contrast taught in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
There is still one case to point out, which is a simple principle that confirms the true character of “kaphar”, of making atonement.
In Ex. 30: 11-16 it was ordered that when the census of the people was taken, each one of them, rich or not, had to give half a shekel as a “kopher”, ransom, for his soul or life.
This had nothing to do with sin, but with ransom, so that no plague would break out; it was a recognition that they all belonged to God, and that there could be no vainglory in number. In connection with this, David brought a plague on Israel centuries later (2 Sam. 24; 1 Chron. 21).
It was an offering to God. as a sign of belonging, and shows what the meaning of “kaphar” is, making atonement.
There is no atonement in connection with the oblation, or cooked offering (Lev. 2). What we have in it as a type is the perfection of the person of Christ and all the elements that constituted him as a man, and thus tested by the fire of God, even to death, and death on a cross, as an offering by fire of a sweet aroma, perfect in his sacrifice; but here we do not find the character of “kopher”, rescue. For this, bloodshed must be present.
The essence of the atonement is, first of all, a work or satisfaction presented to God on the basis of his nature and character regarding sin, fully glorifying him through sacrifice; secondly, the bearing of our sins; glorifying God even where there was sin and with respect to sin (thus being able to go out to all sinners in his love); Likewise, it gives the believer, who comes to God on the basis of this shedding of blood, the certainty that his sins have been completely taken away, and that God will never remember them again.