Popular writers of modernistic taint are fond of explaining the word atonement as at-one-ment. The rough idea is that two people are at variance, explanations are made, differences of judgment are adjusted, and the two at variance are brought into accord. This, or an explanation on these lines, evacuates the word atonement of every atom of its proper meaning. It does not even leave it an empty shell with the kernel abstracted; it simply annihilates the word and substitutes another—though spelt the same—with a meaning entirely, fundamentally and radically different.
It is hard to decide whether theologians who thus explain the word are extremely careless and ignorant on a point of vital importance, or are wilfully guilty of deliberate deception. In either case the result of their propaganda is the same, like poison it has fatal results—fatal not merely for time, but for eternity, fatal in its consequences to the soul.
The word atonement in our English Bible is the translation of a Hebrew word. If the Hebrew word meant at-one-ment, as popularly explained, then the word in our English Bible would be at-one-ment.
Seeing that these theologians are, in the main, college-bred men with initials after their names, such as M.A., B.D., D.D., we can scarcely count them as unfamiliar with legitimate critical methods. To make a play on an English word, and thus ignore the meaning of the word in the original of which it is a translation is not legitimate exegesis. What then is the meaning of the word, atonement, as derived from the Hebrew word? The Hebrew word is Kaphar, and means to cover.
In matters of every-day life, these theologians use the word in a right sense. They never dream of at-one-ment in the affairs of this life. For instance, a man is hanged for murder, and they say that he atoned for his offence, when the sentence of the law was carried out. In the eyes of the law capital punishment covers the crime of murder. A man has slandered another and the court orders a fine of £1,000, and they say the slanderer has atoned for his offence, when he made an ample apology and paid over the fine.
It is noticeable that the word atonement is altogether an Old Testament word. Romans 5:11 is the only place in the Authorized Version of the New Testament where the word is given, but the margin of our Bibles gives the true meaning, “reconciliation”; so that in truth the word never occurs in the New Testament. But atonement—the thing itself—is ONLY in the New Testament. In the Old Testament we get the word continually, but always in connection WITH THE TYPES. The types were unfulfilled had we not the thing itself in the New Testament.
Let us look at the types a little, and see how the anti-type answers to them—many types, but only one anti-type.
The first occurrence is found in Genesis 3:21, “Unto Adam and also to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed [covered] them” When our first parents fell and got a conscience as to their fallen condition, they sought to cover themselves with fig-leaf aprons They tried at-one-ment, but it did not succeed. How did the Lord God cover them? He had passed the sentence of death on them for their sin. Death ALONE then could meet their case. It is an affecting thought that the first death that occurred when the fall came in, was not that of the sinner who deserved it, but that of the sacrifice, whereby the covering was obtained.
Does the type not point on to the atoning death of the Lord Jesus? The covering could only be procured through death. It is evident that the only One who could die in atonement for others must be One on whom death had no claim, or else He could not have offered His life a ransom for others. There is absolutely only One who could answer to this, even our blessed Lord Jesus Christ.
The next instance in Scripture is that of Noah and his wife, their three sons and their wives. They were covered in the ark. The waters of judgment fell upon the ark, but being covered within, not one drop touched its inmates. When Noah was instructed: “Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch” (Gen. 6:14), we get the idea of covering, indeed the very word used for atonement—Kaphar—is used in this connection. It is significant that the unbelievers were covered by the waters of judgment, but there was no atonement in that covering The word hell comes from a root meaning to cover, but it conveys the thought of the unbeliever covered, put out of God’s sight, as eternally obnoxious to Him.
The next instance we would refer to is the well-known incident of Balaam being hired to curse the children of Israel. Why could Balaam not curse God’s people? the secret is found in Numbers 24:2, “And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and saw Israel abiding in his tents [covered] according to their tribes.” Again “How goodly are thy tents [covered], O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel” (v. 5). The people, stiff-necked and rebellious in all conscience, were yet covered in type, and as such Balaam, the false prophet, had against his will to utter truth, as he had received commandment to bless: “He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither has He seen perverseness in Israel” (Num. 23:21).
How these modernists can teach what they do and yet profess to expound the Bible baffles comprehension.
How plain are the words: “It is THE BLOOD that makes an atonement for the soul” (Lev. 17:11). Let the modernist read the instructions for the great day of atonement as given in Leviticus 16. He will see that atonement is connected with SACRIFICE, BLOOD-SHEDDING, DEATH. We find the sin-offering connected with atonement; the burnt-offering connected with atonement. And when we come to the New Testament, where the word does not once occur, but where the thing itself alone occurs, we read: “Whom [Christ] God has set forth to be a propitiation [literally, mercy-seat] through faith in His blood” (Rom. 3:25). Now in the type atonement is connected with both the mercy-seat and the brazen altar—the mercy-seat setting forth the great truth of propitiation; the brazen altar that of substitution.
The mercy-seat or propitiatory sets forth in type the settlement of the whole question of sin for God’s glory according to God’s holiness, thus setting Him free in righteousness to offer salvation to “whosoever will”; whilst the brazen altar sets forth substitution, that is, the repentant sinner claiming by faith forgiveness and salvation through the death of the Lord Jesus. Blood was poured out at the bottom of the brazen altar, and blood was sprinkled on the mercy-seat. Now we get all this in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. In that death lies all our hope. Make light of that and Christianity ceases to be.
Is it propitiation? We read: “He is the propitiation for our sins; and not ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). A sacrifice has been made of such value as to satisfy God about the whole question of sin, so that He can offer forgiveness to every repentant, believing sinner. It must be so: God can only make that offer righteously. How infinite is the sacrifice of Christ! What scope! No wonder the inspired writer breaks forth: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).
Is it substitution? We read: Who [Christ] was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). And, again: “Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24). True, the actual word, substitution, does not occur in the Scriptures, but the thing is there, plainly enough, as each Christian knows experimentally, and he can testify to its truth.
What rest of soul it is, first to grasp, as one did, the substitutionary aspect of the death of Christ, and know in one’s own soul, on the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, that one’s own sins have been forgiven:
“Forgiven, forgotten and cleansed and gone,
My sins are remembered no more.”
Secondly, to see the wonderful aspect of propitiation and to realize the magnificence of that work on the Cross that has settled the whole question of sin: “Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:39). “Once in the end of the world [the consummation of the ages] has He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Heb. 9:26).
In short, this “at-one-ment” theory, wrapped up in whatever pious phrases you like, presented with glowing eloquence it may be, is of the devil. The worst kiss in the history of the world is that of Judas. Alas! how many modernists are giving the Judas-kiss to Christ today. Their doctrines appeal to man in the flesh and are popular with the unthinking crowd, but they are damnable heresies, doing unutterable havoc in Christendom at this hour.
Let us Christians then preach and teach the Bible atonement with all the zeal and fervour that we can, holding to it as our own salvation, presenting it to others as their only hope, as indeed it is.
May God honour His own blessed truth more and more in your soul and mine for His Name’s sake.