In our English Bibles, ‘atonement’ only occurs in Romans 5:11. Is it then more correct to talk about ‘the propitiation’ rather than ‘the atonement’?

This text is from a transcript of a talk by David Gooding, entitled ‘God’s Power for Salvation’ (2005).

Well thank you for the question, and I understand the question because it is based on a problem that has been discussed by people for many years, decades, even centuries. The first problem arises because of our English and the word atonement. When this question says, 'atonement is not a New Testament term', well, it's very good to say that because the New Testament is written in Greek, of course, and the word 'atonement' is what some translators have used when translating certain words in the New Testament. 'By whom we have now received the atonement' says the Authorized Version in Romans 5:11. It is strictly correct to say, of course, that 'atonement' isn't a New Testament word in the sense that, being English, it doesn't occur in the Greek New Testament. The real point, however, is whether 'atonement' in English is a good word to use for any of the words that occur in the New Testament.

To start with in Romans 5:11, do you have a version that reads, 'by whom we have received the atonement'? If so, I suspect that yours is an Authorized Version, a King James Version. The actual Greek means, 'through whom we have now received the reconciliation.' Does anybody else have 'reconciliation' in their translation? Several do. Yes, the Greek word is katallagé and means: 'reconciliation'.

Now, you can start a discussion as to what 'atonement' meant in the days when the translators of the King James Version used it. Some people have argued that in English atonement means 'at-one-ment'—'at one mind', and means therefore that two parties have come to one mind and are thereby reconciled. Well, that's a handy way of illustrating it, but I'm not sure that the English word 'atone' by itself means simply 'at one'. But anyway, that kind of talk is beside the point. The question at issue is how we should translate the words in Greek like we found in Romans 3:25: 'Whom God has set forth to be . . .' now, whatever do you call it in English?

What does your version say at Romans 3:25? 'Whom God has set forth . . .' what? What does the King James Version say? The 'propitiation'? Jolly good. Propitiation is what it means, and propitiate is 'the appeasement of the wrath of God through the sacrifice of Christ'. It satisfies his holy indignation against sin.

This is not savage doctrine. God is angry; sin goes against his whole nature; it is a provocation to the holiness of God, and God feels indignation at sin. And when he pardons us sinners it is not because he says, 'I'm sorry, I got a bit overheated about that, you know. Really I shouldn't have felt so strongly about it.' That is nonsense! God's indignation against sin is just and holy and beautiful. It is not a question of him repenting of it; God doesn't repent of it. And it's not a question of God suppressing his indignation. That indignation had to have the satisfaction it demands, and that is done through the atonement.

Now, the second question here is about the use of the word 'atonement' in the Old Testament. On the day of atonement, in Leviticus 16, that is the ceremony for the day of . . . What does your translation call it? The day of what? In Hebrew it is Yom Kippur. The Jews still celebrate it to this day, in the wintertime.

Yes, it was a Sabbath of rest, but what did the high priest do when he went in? Yes, he made an 'atonement'. Is that what your English translation say? And in Leviticus 23:26–27 'And the Lord spoke unto Moses saying, "On the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of . . ."'. Yours says 'atonement'? Yes, so this is the Hebrew word we were thinking about this morning—kippur (or kippurim). Some people have said that that word in the Hebrew comes from a verb called kaphar, which means 'to cover'. And so they had the idea that the blood of the sacrifice in the Old Testament merely covered the guilt and sins of the people. Therefore the difference between that and Christ is that he really made propitiation, whereas in the Old Testament the blood of bulls and goats only covered their sins.

But that is a doubtful argument from this point of view. It is perfectly true that the Old Testament sacrifices did not 'put away' sins, for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to do any such thing (see Hebrews 10:4). But it was a symbol, and it was called 'the blood of atonement'. 'You shall make atonement' through it—kippur (see Leviticus 6:7). And as we saw, when the Jews came to translate this phrase from the Old Testament and put it into Greek, they used the word hilasterion because they understood that what was happening there was a propitiation. It was only a symbol, of course. Those symbols could not satisfy God's indignation against sin. They were only a symbol, a kind of toy money, but they were a symbol of what Christ did. And what he did is referred to in that same word, as a hilasterion, in Romans 3:25. Now, he did appease the wrath of God.

I agree with you therefore that the sacrifices in the Old Testament were only a symbol. But God said it straight in Leviticus 17: 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make propitiation for your souls' (Leviticus 17:11). It is the blood that makes propitiation. He gave it to them, not just to cover; it was the symbol of propitiation. So, I agree with you that the blood of bulls and goats did not put away sin; they did not appease the wrath of God. They were tokens in advance; they were symbols. It is the blood of Christ that really appeased God; yes, that is perfectly true. But the word that is used in the New Testament is used here in the Old in the Greek translation. And, to this very present day, the Jew celebrates the Yom Kippur—the day of propitiation.