THE atonement is the heart of the plan of salvation. A proper understanding of its meaning is necessary to a correct view of such important matters as the nature of God, the incarnation and work of our Lord, and the requirements for salvation. But the word itself has changed its meaning.
It seems that in 1611, when the Authorized Version was translated, the word was generally used to express the idea of at-one-ment, or mutual reconciliation. Today it means, according to Webster, "to make reparation, compensation, expiation, or amends."
The two meanings are so different that, if the primary meaning of kaphar is "at-one-ment," a reader will be misled if he gives it its modern meaning, which has made it a doctrine in a word. As Melville Scott says:
The term Atonement . . . implies, prior to discussion, a particular conclusion only to be established as a result of discussion. This is not to say that this particular conclusion is mistaken, but merely that it is being taken as proved, when our object is to examine whether it is proved or not. The Word, as generally used, is not a mere colourless term, but a compendium of doctrine taken as admitted and received; it is premises, argument, and conclusion; not a statement of facts about to be tested and sifted, but the verdict already passed upon them. —Melville Scott, The Atonement, p. 16.
The question arises, How can one decide whether either or both of these meanings give us the truth that was embodied in the Hebrew and Greek words used by the inspired writers under the direction of the Holy Spirit?
Lexicons and Doctrine
It would be natural to turn to Hebrew and Greek lexicons to find the meanings of the words used in the original languages. If lexicographers had some mysterious ability to know the connotation of words or some adequate source to turn to, this would be excellent. Unfortunately, this is not true, although the lexicographers do the best they can within their limitations. In the case of Greek, there is the Septua-gint version of the Old Testament, a wealth of classical literature, and a mass of contemporary writing in the same koine Greek used in the New Testament. Even so, it is often necessary to determine the way a word is used by an understanding of the doctrine involved, for the Bible writers often use a word so differently that it becomes a new term. For Hebrew, there are now the ancient tablets from Ugarit, in a Semitic language related to Hebrew, written before most of the Old Testament, and the Dead Sea scrolls, written two centuries after the canon was closed; but still no Hebrew literature exists from the times when much of the Old Testament was written.
Inevitably, then, the meanings in the lexicons reflect the theological views of the compiler or of those whom he regards as authorities on the teachings of Scripture. An example recently given publicity by being quoted in a polemical work will show how far theological bias can take a lexicographer. Thayer's Greek Lexicon, speaking of apolesai, the aorist infinitive active of apollumi, gives as one meaning, "to be delivered up to eternal misery." The root word is ollumi or oluo, and means to destroy, to kill, to lose. The addition of apo, from or away, emphasizes the utterness of the destruction, so that it is translated in the KJV perish, 33 times; lose or be lost, 31 times; and destroy or be destroyed, 26 times; while a noun form, Apollyon, is used for the king of the destroying locusts in Revelation 9:11. When the Greek is so clear, how could Thayer define it as "to deliver up to eternal misery?" Perhaps he reasoned thus: "We know that the soul is immortal; therefore, when the Lord says that God is able to destroy both soul and body in gehenna (Matt. 10:28), He must have meant destroy the body and deliver up the soul to eternal torment. So that must be one meaning of apolesai!"
A further example from Thayer—who admits in his introduction that the lexicographer must be an exegete—is his definition of apothnesko in Romans 8:13; John 6:50; 11:26, as "to be subject to eternal misery, and that, too, already beginning on earth." Other lexicographers are less frank in admitting their theological bias, but are guided by it nonetheless. Gesenius defines sheol as the place where the shades of the dead dwell, when etymologically the word means nothing more than a cavity. The same change has been made in the German Hohle, Greek koiloma, Latin caelum, and English hell. All mean a hole and are used of the grave, but have been given a very different meaning, so that hell and torment seem to be synonymous. Other examples of theological bias in lexicons will be found in later articles.
How to Find the Real Meaning
If lexicons include meanings that may have no linguistic sanction, but are based upon theological positions that may be mistaken, how can the real connotation of a Bible word be determined? There are three steps: (1) Use a lexicon to find the accepted meanings of the word. (2) Trace the word back to its simplest or root form and find the basic meaning. (3) Analyze its use in Scripture, remembering that the meaning will always be a development of the root idea and in harmony with the general teaching of the Bible.
For this sort of study, one or two good lexicons are needed for steps one and two, and a concordance that gathers together all the passages in which a particular word or form appears, for step three. For those who cannot use Hebrew and Greek concordances, the Englishman's Greek and Hebrew Concordances are good, and Young's Analytical can do the work fairly well. It is especially necessary that those without skill in the Biblical languages should check all conclusions by the general tenor of Scripture.
Uncertainty as to the Atonement
These two factors, changes in the meaning of words and the reflection of theological views in lexicons, have helped to bring a good deal of uncertainty into the minds of sincere Bible students. Since the death of Christ atoned for sin, they ask, how can that sin be brought up in the investigative judgment? Has it not been atoned for, and therefore canceled?
The answer is clearly given, in any translation, by a study of the typical services of the earthly tabernacle. The confessed sin was transferred to the sanctuary, to remain there until the sanctuary itself was purified by the removal of the sin into final oblivion. The sin was separated, not canceled.
Again, Christ is spoken of as being set forth as a propitiation for our sins. Then God must be unpropitious to the sinner. But God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. He has always been propitious.
Such conflicts between the meanings attributed to the words and the general teaching of the whole context with its parallel Scriptures demand a close study of the uses of the words in the Bible to find the harmony between the words and their context.
This series of brief studies of the Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible to describe the atonement has as one purpose a demonstration of the necessity to dig down through the overburden of translations and commentaries to reach the gold of truth, that others may be encouraged to undertake similar work.
