Improper Use Of The Word Atonement...You Decide

[RJ]

I am not a theologian, just a lover of Christ.
But, I have my thoughts on things like everyone else.

Recently, I have been on threads where I believe the word Atonement has been used wrongly. But, what complicates my belief is that some Bible versions support what I believe as the wrong use and some use it more accurately.

So, I will report what I have found, my belief, and let the rest of you decided. To do this is a discussion between the differnce in Atonement as compared to Propitiation.

Atonement: comes from the root meaning to "put a cover on" or "to cover over".

Propitiation: comes from a root meaning, " something done to a person" or "to take away".

Altough Atonement was widely used in the ancient days and was assoiciated with sin by the sprinkling of the blood of Bulls and Goats ( ancient "Day Of Atonement"), some Bible versions us atonement in the New Testament associated with that of Jesus sacrifce.

Many Bible version like the KJV, use Atonement soley in the Old Testament and uses Propitiation only in the New Testament.

Other versions ,like my favorite NIV, uses Atonement in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. I am now disagreeing with the NIV.

For me, I think that the use of Atonement is more accurate for the Old Testament and the use of Propitiation is more accurately used in the New Testament, and here is why"




Atonement

• Atonement means to cover over.
• In the ancient days, sins were atoned for by the blood of Bulls and Goats.
• For centuries, year after year this process had to be repeated over and over again during the "Day Of Atonement".
• Sins and thier expiation of was only a matter of "covering them over" not taking away completely and that is why it had to be repeated.
• <SUP>4</SUP>For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Hebrews 10:4
• Atonement is better and more accurately used in the "Old Testament".

Propitiation

• Propitiation means to "take away".
• Jesus death on the cross was accurately a Propitiation of our sins than it was an Atonment of sins.
• Jesus action was final. It's the "finality of the cross", He didn't cover over our sins, He took them away! His action did not have to be repeated.
• <SUP>37</SUP>And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
  
  
  
  <SUP id=en-KJV-24865 class=versenum>38</SUP>And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. <SUP id=en-KJV-24866 class=versenum>39</SUP>And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. Mark 15:37-39
  
  
  
  
• "The veil was rent in twain", the curtain of the temple was torn form the top to the bottom.
  
• This veli, curtain,before the "Holy Of Hollies" was 90 ft. tall and the tearing of was by God and not man, signifying that God had left the Temple.
  
• There was no more need of the Temple, the blood of Bulls and Goats for sins, Jesus had "taken them away"!!!!
  
• Propitiation is better used and more accurately used in the New Testament.
  

Atonement, Propitiation, two similarly used terms with different meanings.

You decide how and when they should be used.

 

[Boanerges]

The King Jimmy does use atonement once in the New Testament:
Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.


I find the Vines Expository Dictionary invaluable in bringing the full meaning of a word:

From the Vines Expository Dictionary of the New Testament:

Atonement

katallage (G2643), translated "atonement" in the KJV of Rom_5:11, signifies, not "atonement," but "reconciliation," as in the RV. See also Rom_11:15; 2Co_5:18-19. So with the corresponding verb katallasso, see under RECONCILE. "Atonement" (the explanation of this English word as being "at-onement" is entirely fanciful) is frequently found in the OT. See, for instance, Leviticus, chapters 16 and 17. The corresponding NT words are hilasmos, "propitiation," 1Jo_2:2; 1Jo_4:10, and hilasterion, Rom_3:25; Heb_9:5, "mercy-seat," the covering of the ark of the covenant. These describe the means (in and through the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, in His death on the cross by the shedding of His blood in His vicarious sacrifice for sin) by which God shows mercy to sinners. See PROPITIATION.

Propitiation

A. Verb.
hilaskomai (G2433) was used amongst the Greeks with the significance "to make the gods propitious, to appease, propitiate," inasmuch as their good will was not conceived as their natural attitude, but something to be earned first. This use of the word is foreign to the Greek Bible, with respect to God whether in the Sept. or in the NT. It is never used of any act whereby man brings God into a favorable attitude or gracious disposition. It is God who is "propitiated" by the vindication of His holy and righteous character, whereby through the provision He has made in the vicarious and expiatory sacrifice of Christ, He has so dealt with sin that He can show mercy to the believing sinner in the removal of his guilt and the remission of his sins.
Thus in Luk_18:13 it signifies "to be propitious" or "merciful to" (with the person as the object of the verb), and in Heb_2:17 "to expiate, to make propitiation for" (the object of the verb being sins); here the RV,"to make propitiation" is an important correction of the KJV "to make reconciliation." Through the "propitiatory" sacrifice of Christ, he who believes upon Him is by God's own act delivered from justly deserved wrath, and comes under the covenant of grace. Never is God said to be reconciled, a fact itself indicative that the enmity exists on man's part alone, and that it is man who needs to be reconciled to God, and not God to man. God is always the same and, since He is Himself immutable, His relative attitude does change towards those who change. He can act differently towards those who come to Him by faith, and solely on the ground of the "propitiatory" sacrifice of Christ, not because He has changed, but because He ever acts according to His unchanging righteousness.
The expiatory work of the Cross is therefore the means whereby the barrier which sin interposes between God and man is broken down. By the giving up of His sinless life sacrificially, Christ annuls the power of sin to separate between God and the believer.
In the OT the Hebrew verb kaphar is connected with kopher, "a covering" (see MERCY SEAT), and is used in connection with the burnt offering, e.g., Lev_1:4; Lev_14:20; Lev_16:24, the guilt offering, e.g., Lev_5:16, Lev_5:18, the sin offering, e.g., Lev_4:20, Lev_4:26, Lev_4:31, Lev_4:35, the sin offering and burnt offering together, e.g., Lev_5:10; Lev_9:7, the meal offering and peace offering, e.g., Eze_45:15, Eze_45:17, as well as in other respects. It is used of the ram offered at the consecration of the high priest, Exo_29:33, and of the blood which God gave upon the altar to make "propitiation" for the souls of the people, and that because "the life of the flesh is in the blood," Lev_17:11, and "it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life" (RV). Man has forfeited his life on account of sin and God has provided the one and only way whereby eternal life could be bestowed, namely, by the voluntary laying down of His life by His Son, under divine retribution. Of this the former sacrifices appointed by God were foreshadowings.
B. Nouns.
1. hilasterion (G2435), akin to A, is regarded as the neuter of an adjective signifying "propitiatory." In the Sept. it is used adjectivally in connection with epithema, "a cover," in Exo_25:17 and Exo_37:6, of the lid of the ark (see MERCY SEAT), but it is used as a noun (without epithema), of locality, in Exo_25:18, Exo_25:19, Exo_25:20, Exo_25:21, Exo_25:22; Exo_31:7; Exo_35:12; Exo_37:7, Exo_37:8, Exo_37:9; Lev_16:2, Lev_16:13, Lev_16:14, Lev_16:15; Num_7:89, and this is its use in Heb_9:5.
Elsewhere in the NT it occurs in Rom_3:25, where it is used of Christ Himself; the RV text and punctuation in this verse are important: "whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by His blood." The phrase "by His blood" is to be taken in immediate connection with "propitiation." Christ, through His expiatory death, is the personal means by whom God shows the mercy of His justifying grace to the sinner who believes. His "blood" stands for the voluntary giving up of His life, by the shedding of His blood in expiatory sacrifice under divine judgment righteously due to us as sinners, faith being the sole condition on man's part.
Note: "By metonymy, 'blood' is sometimes put for 'death,' inasmuch as, blood being essential to life, Lev_17:11, when the blood is shed life is given up, that is, death takes place. The fundamental principle on which God deals with sinners is expressed in the words 'apart from shedding of blood,' i.e., unless a death takes place, 'there is no remission' of sins, Heb_9:22.
"But whereas the essential of the type lay in the fact that blood was shed, the essential of the antitype lies in this, that the blood shed was that of Christ. Hence, in connection with Jewish sacrifices, 'the blood' is mentioned without reference to the victim from which it flowed, but in connection with the great antitypical sacrifice of the NT the words 'the blood' never stand alone; the One Who shed the blood is invariably specified, for it is the Person that gives value to the work; the saving efficacy of the Death depends entirely upon the fact that He Who died was the Son of God."*
* From Notes on Thessalonians by Hogg and Vine, p. 168.
2. hilasmos (G2434), akin to hileos ("merciful, propitious"), signifies "an expiation, a means whereby sin is covered and remitted." It is used in the NT of Christ Himself as "the propitiation," in 1Jo_2:2 and 1Jo_4:10, signifying that He Himself, through the expiatory sacrifice of His death, is the personal means by whom God shows mercy to the sinner who believes on Christ as the One thus provided. In the former passage He is described as "the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." The italicized addition in the KJV, "the sins of," gives a wrong interpretation. What is indicated is that provision is made for the whole world, so that no one is, by divine predetermination, excluded from the scope of God's mercy; the efficacy of the "propitiation," however, is made actual for those who believe. In 1Jo_4:10, the fact that God "sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins," is shown to be the great expression of God's love toward man, and the reason why Christians should love one another. In the Sept., Lev_25:9; Num_5:8; 1Ch_28:20; Psa_130:4; Eze_44:27; Amo_8:14.

 

[RJ]

The King Jimmy does use atonement once in the New Testament:
Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.


I find the Vines Expository Dictionary invaluable in bringing the full meaning of a word:

From the Vines Expository Dictionary of the New Testament:

Atonement

katallage (G2643), translated "atonement" in the KJV of Rom_5:11, signifies, not "atonement," but "reconciliation," as in the RV. See also Rom_11:15; 2Co_5:18-19. So with the corresponding verb katallasso, see under RECONCILE. "Atonement" (the explanation of this English word as being "at-onement" is entirely fanciful) is frequently found in the OT. See, for instance, Leviticus, chapters 16 and 17. The corresponding NT words are hilasmos, "propitiation," 1Jo_2:2; 1Jo_4:10, and hilasterion, Rom_3:25; Heb_9:5, "mercy-seat," the covering of the ark of the covenant. These describe the means (in and through the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, in His death on the cross by the shedding of His blood in His vicarious sacrifice for sin) by which God shows mercy to sinners. See PROPITIATION.

Propitiation

A. Verb.
hilaskomai (G2433) was used amongst the Greeks with the significance "to make the gods propitious, to appease, propitiate," inasmuch as their good will was not conceived as their natural attitude, but something to be earned first. This use of the word is foreign to the Greek Bible, with respect to God whether in the Sept. or in the NT. It is never used of any act whereby man brings God into a favorable attitude or gracious disposition. It is God who is "propitiated" by the vindication of His holy and righteous character, whereby through the provision He has made in the vicarious and expiatory sacrifice of Christ, He has so dealt with sin that He can show mercy to the believing sinner in the removal of his guilt and the remission of his sins.
Thus in Luk_18:13 it signifies "to be propitious" or "merciful to" (with the person as the object of the verb), and in Heb_2:17 "to expiate, to make propitiation for" (the object of the verb being sins); here the RV,"to make propitiation" is an important correction of the KJV "to make reconciliation." Through the "propitiatory" sacrifice of Christ, he who believes upon Him is by God's own act delivered from justly deserved wrath, and comes under the covenant of grace. Never is God said to be reconciled, a fact itself indicative that the enmity exists on man's part alone, and that it is man who needs to be reconciled to God, and not God to man. God is always the same and, since He is Himself immutable, His relative attitude does change towards those who change. He can act differently towards those who come to Him by faith, and solely on the ground of the "propitiatory" sacrifice of Christ, not because He has changed, but because He ever acts according to His unchanging righteousness.
The expiatory work of the Cross is therefore the means whereby the barrier which sin interposes between God and man is broken down. By the giving up of His sinless life sacrificially, Christ annuls the power of sin to separate between God and the believer.
In the OT the Hebrew verb kaphar is connected with kopher, "a covering" (see MERCY SEAT), and is used in connection with the burnt offering, e.g., Lev_1:4; Lev_14:20; Lev_16:24, the guilt offering, e.g., Lev_5:16, Lev_5:18, the sin offering, e.g., Lev_4:20, Lev_4:26, Lev_4:31, Lev_4:35, the sin offering and burnt offering together, e.g., Lev_5:10; Lev_9:7, the meal offering and peace offering, e.g., Eze_45:15, Eze_45:17, as well as in other respects. It is used of the ram offered at the consecration of the high priest, Exo_29:33, and of the blood which God gave upon the altar to make "propitiation" for the souls of the people, and that because "the life of the flesh is in the blood," Lev_17:11, and "it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life" (RV). Man has forfeited his life on account of sin and God has provided the one and only way whereby eternal life could be bestowed, namely, by the voluntary laying down of His life by His Son, under divine retribution. Of this the former sacrifices appointed by God were foreshadowings.
B. Nouns.
1. hilasterion (G2435), akin to A, is regarded as the neuter of an adjective signifying "propitiatory." In the Sept. it is used adjectivally in connection with epithema, "a cover," in Exo_25:17 and Exo_37:6, of the lid of the ark (see MERCY SEAT), but it is used as a noun (without epithema), of locality, in Exo_25:18, Exo_25:19, Exo_25:20, Exo_25:21, Exo_25:22; Exo_31:7; Exo_35:12; Exo_37:7, Exo_37:8, Exo_37:9; Lev_16:2, Lev_16:13, Lev_16:14, Lev_16:15; Num_7:89, and this is its use in Heb_9:5.
Elsewhere in the NT it occurs in Rom_3:25, where it is used of Christ Himself; the RV text and punctuation in this verse are important: "whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by His blood." The phrase "by His blood" is to be taken in immediate connection with "propitiation." Christ, through His expiatory death, is the personal means by whom God shows the mercy of His justifying grace to the sinner who believes. His "blood" stands for the voluntary giving up of His life, by the shedding of His blood in expiatory sacrifice under divine judgment righteously due to us as sinners, faith being the sole condition on man's part.
Note: "By metonymy, 'blood' is sometimes put for 'death,' inasmuch as, blood being essential to life, Lev_17:11, when the blood is shed life is given up, that is, death takes place. The fundamental principle on which God deals with sinners is expressed in the words 'apart from shedding of blood,' i.e., unless a death takes place, 'there is no remission' of sins, Heb_9:22.
"But whereas the essential of the type lay in the fact that blood was shed, the essential of the antitype lies in this, that the blood shed was that of Christ. Hence, in connection with Jewish sacrifices, 'the blood' is mentioned without reference to the victim from which it flowed, but in connection with the great antitypical sacrifice of the NT the words 'the blood' never stand alone; the One Who shed the blood is invariably specified, for it is the Person that gives value to the work; the saving efficacy of the Death depends entirely upon the fact that He Who died was the Son of God."*
* From Notes on Thessalonians by Hogg and Vine, p. 168.
2. hilasmos (G2434), akin to hileos ("merciful, propitious"), signifies "an expiation, a means whereby sin is covered and remitted." It is used in the NT of Christ Himself as "the propitiation," in 1Jo_2:2 and 1Jo_4:10, signifying that He Himself, through the expiatory sacrifice of His death, is the personal means by whom God shows mercy to the sinner who believes on Christ as the One thus provided. In the former passage He is described as "the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." The italicized addition in the KJV, "the sins of," gives a wrong interpretation. What is indicated is that provision is made for the whole world, so that no one is, by divine predetermination, excluded from the scope of God's mercy; the efficacy of the "propitiation," however, is made actual for those who believe. In 1Jo_4:10, the fact that God "sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins," is shown to be the great expression of God's love toward man, and the reason why Christians should love one another. In the Sept., Lev_25:9; Num_5:8; 1Ch_28:20; Psa_130:4; Eze_44:27; Amo_8:14.

That's a lot on the subject, thanks my brother.

I still think it bascically goes back to:
<SUP>4</SUP>For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Hebrews 10:4

Call it atonement or call it propitiation as long as we and others understand the difference between the blood of Jesus and that of Bulls and Goats.

Bulls and Goats covered over sins until the next year, Jesus took them away for ever!

There were no chairs in the Temple for the Priest to sit down, signifying that there job of atonement was never finished.

The "finality of the cross" is that when Jesus was finished, He sat down at the right hand of the Father for all eternity!

Amen

 

[Boanerges]

That's a lot on the subject, thanks my brother. I still think it bascically goes back to: 4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Hebrews 10:4 Call it atonement or call it propitiation as long as we and others understand the difference between the blood of Jesus and that of Bulls and Goats. Bulls and Goats covered over sins until the next year, Jesus took them away for ever! There were no chairs in the Temple for the Priest to sit down, signifying that there job of atonement was never finished. The "finality of the cross" is that when Jesus was finished, He sat down at the right hand of the Father for all eternity! Amen

Amen x 10 my brother.

 

[rojoloco]

This is a very good thread Joe. I actually feel the 2 go hand in hand. In the Old Testament, there was no propitiation in the animals. It was merely temporary atonement. It wasn't until the New Testament that propitiation came to be in Christ. However, we must not forget that he was referred to as the Lamb. He was the ultimate sacrifice for us. We are still fallen beings. We still sin. It is not our sin that is taken away in Christ but rather, the debt. When Christ said, "It is finished!," he was not saying sin is finished. He was using the word teleo which was often a term used in financial situations. It literally meant a debt that was paid in full. God demands blood in the place of sin. However, because of the propitiation of Christ, that blood is no longer necessary. Our debt was paid once and for all. We now have an Advocate in Christ who paid the penalty in full. Again, the sin is still there but the debt is not. However, it is because of the atonement that God does not see our sin. The blood of Christ has washed us clean. In the eyes of God, He sees us through the blood. The atonement covers all sins. It is the same as it was in the Old Testament except for the fact that there is finality in Christ's atonement. The atonement and the propititation work hand in hand to secure salvation.

 

[Faith4Bride]

Here is what I have found. the KJV does use the word for atonement more than once in the NT but only translated it in english once as atonement the rest of the time it is either reconcile or reconciled or reconciliation. The word for propitiation is used in the NT twice, once for propitiation once for mercy seat.It says that propitiation can speak of the mercy seat and the blood that would be put on it to cover, but it also means an appeasing while the atonement means exchange. There are two differnt greek words used in the NT for these things so we have to rightly say that they are where they should be in the NT the thing is to find out why each word was used as it is in the place it is.

It seems to me that while we may think that propitiation may seem a not accurate word it is, because while it is true that the blood of bulls covered, and Jesus blood cleanses, His blood was applied to the same mercy seat once and for all because it did a finished work so it was applied the same as bulls but had an effect that bulls could never have.

So i think they go together, because His blood was the propitiation, being placed on the mercy seat for us, we can have the exchange(atonement) which is a finished work and is the reconciliation(atonement).

 

[RJ]

Here is what I have found. the KJV does use the word for atonement more than once in the NT but only translated it in english once as atonement the rest of the time it is either reconcile or reconciled or reconciliation. The word for propitiation is used in the NT twice, once for propitiation once for mercy seat.It says that propitiation can speak of the mercy seat and the blood that would be put on it to cover, but it also means an appeasing while the atonement means exchange. There are two differnt greek words used in the NT for these things so we have to rightly say that they are where they should be in the NT the thing is to find out why each word was used as it is in the place it is.

It seems to me that while we may think that propitiation may seem a not accurate word it is, because while it is true that the blood of bulls covered, and Jesus blood cleanses, His blood was applied to the same mercy seat once and for all because it did a finished work so it was applied the same as bulls but had an effect that bulls could never have.

So i think they go together, because His blood was the propitiation, being placed on the mercy seat for us, we can have the exchange(atonement) which is a finished work and is the reconciliation(atonement).

That's Ok, we can agree or to disagree on minor details other than our own salvation throrough faith in grace.

For me , your use of the "mercy seat' is not totally accurate.

The blood of bulls was sprinkled on the mercy seat, an actual object located in the "Holly of Hollies" in the inner most part of the the Temple, where God resided. This was to cover for sins only.

When Jesus died, the veil or curtain to the " Holly of Hollies" was torn from top to bottom. This veil was 90 ft. tall, signifying that man could not have done this but God alone. It also meant that God had left that place and the "mercy seat' was no longer of any use.

There was not physical, mand-made object, 'mercy seat", for Christ's blood to be sprinkled on. His blood was scattered all over the country side. His blood never touch that mercy seat that had been used for centuries.

There is no more blood to be shed because because His sacrifice was a propititiation of sins because He"took away" sins forever. Many don't believe this but, Jeus took away all sins: sins before, sins now and our sins in the future, as well as those not born yet.

All our sins died on the cross, but we did not die to sinning.
God said that He was not going to look at our sins, all sins, again. God completely took away (propitiation) what seperated us and said, for Him, it was not going to be an issue any more.

All that is left is for us to believe in this and recieve the saving grace in His sons resurrected life.

And now, Jesus Christ, Himself, is the mercy seat, upon which judgement will be carried out on those who are not in Christ.

 

[Faith4Bride]

Some believe the testimony of the archeologist Ron Wyatt who said He found the ark of the covenant under the crucifixion whole made by the cross in the gound where the Lord was crucified and that the blood in the earthquake dripped down that hole onto the real mercy seat that was hidden in a cave there and that he had the blood tested and it was shown to be the blood of a man with only the dna of a mother and one for aFather instead of the 23 or so there is suppose to be and that when the scientists asked where he got this blood he told them this is the blood of your Lord.(he was in israel).

Either way that is interesting and i would not be suprised IF it is true because Jesus fulfills the law. Either way, we know surely that now WE are the temple. and WE have an altar, and WE have access into the holy of holies by the blood of Jesus in boldness and that His blood is upon US who is the fulfillment of the literal mercy seat! Just as in the mercy seat, was the rod that budded, the commandments, the manna etc etc so these are IN US through Christ Jesus! AMEN

 

[RJ]

That's Ok, we can agree or to disagree on minor details other than our own salvation throrough faith in grace.

For me , your use of the "mercy seat' is not totally accurate.

The blood of bulls was sprinkled on the mercy seat, an actual object located in the "Holly of Hollies" in the inner most part of the the Temple, where God resided. This was to cover for sins only.

When Jesus died, the veil or curtain to the " Holly of Hollies" was torn from top to bottom. This veil was 90 ft. tall, signifying that man could not have done this but God alone. It also meant that God had left that place and the "mercy seat' was no longer of any use.

There was not physical, mand-made object, 'mercy seat", for Christ's blood to be sprinkled on. His blood was scattered all over the country side. His blood never touch that mercy seat that had been used for centuries.

There is no more blood to be shed because because His sacrifice was a propititiation of sins because He"took away" sins forever. Many don't believe this but, Jeus took away all sins: sins before, sins now and our sins in the future, as well as those not born yet.

All our sins died on the cross, but we did not die to sinning.
God said that He was not going to look at our sins, all sins, again. God completely took away (propitiation) what seperated us and said, for Him, it was not going to be an issue any more.

All that is left is for us to believe in this and recieve the saving grace in His sons resurrected life.

And now, Jesus Christ, Himself, is the mercy seat, upon which judgement will be carried out on those who are not in Christ.

I have a bit of a clarification:

If there was a "Mercy Seat" today it would be Christ. For sure He was the "mercy seat" the day he died.
But actually, because of the work of Jesus, mercy (forgiveness) is complete and there is no need of a mercy seat any longer.

In Christ we don't get mercy, in Christ we have mercy.

The only thing left now is judgement. And in reference to Jesus Christ the New testament does not refer to Him as the "mercy seat" but the "Judgment Seat".


<SUP class=versenum id=en-KJV-28291>10</SUP>But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Romans 14:10 KJV



<SUP class=versenum id=en-KJV-28888>10</SUP>For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 2 Corinthians 5:10


<SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-27979>16</SUP>on the day when, <SUP class=xref value='(A)'>(A)</SUP>according to my gospel, <SUP class=xref value='(B)'>(B)</SUP>God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. Romans 2:6

The coming of Jesus was not to judge thw world but to provide mercy and salvation.

Jeus Christ's final coming will be not to save but to judge!

 

[RJ]

This is a very good thread Joe. I actually feel the 2 go hand in hand. In the Old Testament, there was no propitiation in the animals. It was merely temporary atonement. It wasn't until the New Testament that propitiation came to be in Christ. However, we must not forget that he was referred to as the Lamb. He was the ultimate sacrifice for us. We are still fallen beings. We still sin. It is not our sin that is taken away in Christ but rather, the debt. When Christ said, "It is finished!," he was not saying sin is finished. He was using the word teleo which was often a term used in financial situations. It literally meant a debt that was paid in full. God demands blood in the place of sin. However, because of the propitiation of Christ, that blood is no longer necessary. Our debt was paid once and for all. We now have an Advocate in Christ who paid the penalty in full. Again, the sin is still there but the debt is not. However, it is because of the atonement that God does not see our sin. The blood of Christ has washed us clean. In the eyes of God, He sees us through the blood. The atonement covers all sins. It is the same as it was in the Old Testament except for the fact that there is finality in Christ's atonement. The atonement and the propititation work hand in hand to secure salvation.

Yes this is an interesting subject.

But I pefer to keep atonement and propitiation seperate and different in meaning.



This better fits the distinction between the Old Covenant sacrifice and the New Covenant sacrifice.

• The Old Covenant sacrifce of animals for the yearly "covering" of sins. that had to be repeated.
• The New Covenant sacrifice, one time, which "took away sins".
• Though the debt was paid in full, I see no scriptual support for debt being connected to the words "taken away". And, that God would look at sin no more.

<SUP class=versenum id=en-KJV-26074>29</SUP>The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29
<SUP>34</SUP>And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Jeremiah 31: 34

And I don't see the connection between the Lamb of God ( Jesus) and atonement. The Lamb here was symbolic of the perfect, unblemished sacrice of Jesus that taketh away sin. The blood of Lambs in the Old Covenant merely "covered over" sins.

Also, I may be mistaken, but aren't you a proponent of "Election Only". Your above statement:Our debt was paid once and for all. is a little confusing. How do you reconcile saying that Jesus died for all but God only saves the elect?