[1] Robert Boyle, _The Sceptical Chymist_ (1661); _The Usefulness of
Natural Philosophy_ (1663).
[2] Sir Isaac Newton, _Principia_, bk. ii. prop. 23.
[3] Freund, _The Study of Chemical Composition_.
[4] It will be seen that in the three gas diagrams of Dalton that are
reproduced above, equal numbers of molecules are contained in equal
volumes, but if Dalton held this view at one time he certainly
afterwards abandoned it.
[5] Rutherford, _Radioactivity_.
ATONEMENT and DAY OF ATONEMENT.
The religious doctrine.
"Atone" (originally--see below--"at one") and "atonement" terms
ordinarily used as practically synonymous with satisfaction, reparation,
compensation, with a view to reconciliation. As the English technical
terms representing a theological doctrine which plays an important part
not only in Christianity but in most religions, the underlying ideas
require more detailed analysis. A doctrine of atonement makes the
following presuppositions. (a) There is a natural relation between God
and man in which God looks favourably upon man. (b) This relation has
been disturbed so that God regards man's character and conduct with
disapproval, and inflicts suffering upon him by way of punishment. In
the higher religions the disturbance is due, as just implied, to
unsatisfactory conduct on man's part, i.e. sin. (c) The normal
relation may be restored, i.e. sin may be forgiven; and this
restoration is the atonement.
The problem of the atonement is the means or condition of the
restoration of man to God's favour; this has been variously found (a) in
the endurance of punishment; (b) in the payment of compensation for the
wrong done, the compensation consisting of sacrifices and other
offerings; (c) in the performance of magical or other ritual, the
efficacy of the ritual consisting in its being pleasing to or appointed
by God, or even in its having a coercive power over the deity; (d) in
repentance and amendment of life. Most theories of atonement would
combine two or more of these, and would include repentance and
amendment. Some or all of the conditions of atonement may be fulfilled,
according to various views, either by the sinner or vicariously on his
behalf by some kinsman; or by his family, clan or nation; or by some one
else.
Old Testament.
In the Old Testament, "atonement," "make an atonement" represent the
Hebrew _kippur_ and its derivatives. It is doubtful whether this root
meant originally to "cover" or "wipe out"; but probably it is used as a
technical term without any consciousness of its etymology. The Old
Testament presents very varied teaching on this subject without
attempting to co-ordinate its doctrines in a harmonious system. In some
cases there is no suggestion of any forgiveness; sinners are "cut off"
from the chosen people; individuals and nations perish in their
iniquity.[1] Some passages refer exclusively to the endurance of
punishment as a condition of pardon;[2] others to the penitence and
amendment of the sinner.[3] In Ezekiel xxxvi. 25-31, repentance is
called forth by the divine forgiveness.
Sacrifice and other rites are also spoken of as conditions of the
restoration of man to happy relations with God. The Priestly Code
(Leviticus and allied passages) seems to confine the efficacy of
sacrifice to ritual, venial and involuntary sins,[4] and requires that
the sacrifices should be offered at Jerusalem by the Aaronic priests;
but these limitations did not belong to the older religion; and even in
later times popular faith ascribed a larger efficacy to sacrifice. On
the other hand, other passages protest against the ascription of great
importance to sacrifice; or regard the rite as a consequence rather than
a cause of forgiveness.[5] The Old Testament has no theory of sacrifice;
in connexion with sin the sacrifice was popularly regarded as payment of
penalty or compensation. Lev. xvii. 11 suggests a mystic or symbolic
explanation by its statement "the life of the flesh is in the blood; and
I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your
lives:[6] for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the
life." The Old Testament nowhere explains why this importance is
attached to the blood, but the passage is often held to mean that the
life of the victim represented the forfeited life of the offerer.
Jewish day of atonement.
The atoning ritual reached its climax on the Day of Atonement [Hebrew:
yom hakipurim] [Greek: aemera exilasmon], in the Mishna simply "the
Day," (_Yoma_), observed annually on the 10th day of the 7th month
(Tisri), in the autumn, about October, shortly before the Feast of
Tabernacles or vintage festival. At one time the year began in Tisri.
The laws of the Day of Atonement belong to the Priestly Code.[7] There
is no trace of this function before the exile; the earliest reference to
any such special time of atonement being the proposal of Ezek. xlv.
18-20 to establish two days of atonement, in the first and seventh
months.[8] No doubt, however, both the principles and ritual are partly
derived from earlier times. The object of the observances was to cleanse
the sanctuary, the priesthood and the people from all their sins, and to
renew and maintain favourable relations between Yahweh and Israel. The
ritual includes features found on other holy days, sacrifices,
abstinence from work, &c.; and also certain unique acts. The Day of
Atonement is the only fast provided in the Law; it is only on this
occasion that (a) the Jews are required to "afflict their souls," (b)
the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies, (c) the High Priest offers
incense before the mercy seat and sprinkles it with blood, and (d) the
scapegoat or Azazel is sent away into the wilderness, bearing upon him
all the iniquities of the people. In later Judaism, especially from
about 100 B.C., great stress was laid on the Day of Atonement, and it is
now the most important religious function of the Jews. On that day many
attend the synagogues who are seldom or never seen in them at other
times.
The idea of vicarious atonement appears in the Old Testament in
different forms. The nation suffers for the sin of the individual;[9]
and the individual for the sin of his kinsfolk[10] or of the nation.[11]
Above all the Servant of Yahweh[12] appears as atoning for sinners by
his sufferings and death. Again, the Old Testament speaks of the
restoration of heathen nations, and of the salvation of the heathen;[13]
but does not formulate any theory of atonement in this connexion. The
Old Testament, however, only prepares the way for the Christian doctrine
of the atonement; this is clear, inasmuch as its teaching is largely
concerned with the nation, and hardly touches on the future life.
Moreover, it could not define the relation of Christ to the atonement.
Later Judaism emphasized the idea of vicarious atonement for Israel
through the sufferings of the righteous, especially the martyrs; but it
is very doubtful whether the idea of the atonement through the death of
the Messiah is a pre-Christian Jewish doctrine.[14]
New Testament.
In the New Testament, the English version uses "atonement" once, Rom. v.
11, for [Greek: katallagae] (R.V. here and elsewhere "reconciliation").
This Greek word corresponds to the idea suggested by the etymology of
at-one-ment, the re-uniting in amity of those at variance, a sense which
the word had in the 17th century but has since lost. But the idea which
is now usually expressed by "atonement" is rather represented in the New
Testament by [Greek: ilasmos] and its cognates, e.g. 1 John ii. 2 R.V.,
"He (Jesus) is the propitiation ([Greek: ilasmos]) for our sins." But
these words are rare, and we read more often of "salvation" ([Greek:
sotaeria]) and "being saved," which includes or involves that
restoration to divine favour which is called atonement. The leading
varieties of teaching, the Sayings of Jesus, Paul, the Johannine
writings, the Epistle to the Hebrews, connect the atonement with Christ
especially with His death, and associate it with faith in Him and with
repentance and amendment of life.[15]
These ideas are also common to Christian teaching generally. The New
Testament, however, does not indicate that its writers were agreed as to
any formal dogma of the atonement, as regards the relation of the death
of Christ to the sinner's restoration to God's favour; but various
suggestions are made as to the solution of the problem. St Paul's
teaching connects with the Jewish doctrine of vicarious suffering,
represented in the Old Testament by Is. liii., and probably, though not
expressly, with the ritual sacrifices. Christ suffering on behalf of
sinners satisfies the divine righteousness, which was outraged by their
sin.[16] His work is an expression of God's love to man;[17] the
redeeming power of Christ's death is also explained by his solidarity
with humanity as the second Adam,[18]--the redeemed sinner has "died
with Christ."[19] Some atoning virtue seems also attributed to the
Resurrection;[20] Christ's sayings connect admission to the kingdom of
God with susceptibility to the influence of His personality, faith in
Himself and His mission, and the loyalty that springs from faith.[21] In
John, Christ is a "propitiation" ([Greek: ilasmos]) provided by the love
of God that man may be cleansed from sin; He is also their advocate
([Greek: Paraklaetos]) with God that they may be forgiven, for His
name's sake.[22] _Hebrews_ speaks of Christ as transcending the rites
and officials of the law; He accomplishes the realities which they could
only foreshadow; in relation to the perfect, heavenly sacrifice which
atones for sin, He is both priest and victim.[23]
Later interpretation.
The subsequent development of the Christian doctrine has chiefly shaped
itself according to the Pauline formula of vicarious atonement; the
sufferings of Christ were accepted as a substitute for the punishment
which men deserved, and so the divine righteousness was satisfied--a
formula, however, which left much room for controversy. The creeds and
confessions are usually vague. Thus the Apostles' Creed, "I believe in
the forgiveness of sins"; the Nicene Creed, "I believe in one Lord Jesus
Christ ... who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven
... I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins"; the Athanasian
Creed, "Who (Christ) suffered for our salvation." In the Thirty-nine
Articles of the Church of England we have (ii.) "Christ suffered ... to
reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original
guilt, but also for all actual sins of men"; and (xxxi.) "The offering
of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and
satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world." The council of Trent
declared that "_Christus ... nobis sua sanctissima passione ligno crucis
justificationem meruit et pro nobis deo patri satisfecit_," "Christ
earned our justification by His most holy passion and satisfied God the
Father for us." The Confession of Augsburg uses words equivalent to the
Articles quoted above which were based upon it. The Westminster
Confession declares: "The Lord Jesus Christ, by His perfect obedience
and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the Eternal Spirit once
offered up to God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father, and
purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the
kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him."
Individual theologians have sought to define more exactly the points on
which the standards are vague. For instance, how was justice satisfied
by Christ? The early Fathers, from Irenaeus (d. c. 200) to Anselm (d.
1109),[24] held, _inter alia_, that Christ paid a ransom to Satan to
induce him to release men from his power. Anselm and the scholastics
regarded the atonement as an offering to God of such infinite value as
to outweigh men's sins, a view sometimes styled the "Commerical
Theory."[25] The leading reformers emphasized the idea that Christ bore
the punishment of sin, sufferings equivalent to the punishments deserved
by men, a view maintained later on by Jonathan Edwards junior. But the
intellectual activity of the Reformation also developed other views; the
Socinians, with their humanitarian theory of the Person of Christ,
taught that He died only to assure men of God's forgiving love and to
afford them an example of obedience--"Forgiveness is granted upon the
ground of repentance and obedience."[26] Grotius put forward what has
been called the _Governmental_ Theory, viz. that the atonement took
place not to satisfy the wrath of God, but in the practical interests of
the divine government of the world, "The sufferings and death of the Son
of God are an exemplary exhibition of God's hatred of moral evil, in
connexion with which it is safe and prudent to remit that penalty, which
so far as God and the divine attributes are concerned, might have been
remitted without it."[27]
Modern views.
The formal legal view continued to be widely held, though it was
modified in many ways by various theologians. For instance, it has been
held that Christ atoned for mankind not by enduring the penalty of sin,
but by identifying Himself with the sinner in perfect sympathy, and
feeling for him an "equivalent repentance" for his sin. Thus McLeod
Campbell (q.v.) held that Christ atoned by offering up to God a perfect
confession of the sins of mankind and an adequate repentance for them,
with which divine justice is satisfied, and a full expiation is made for
human guilt. A similar view was held by F.D. Maurice.[28] Others hold
that the effect of the atoning death of Christ is not to propitiate God,
but to reconcile man to God; it manifests righteousness, and thus
reveals the heinousness of sin; it also reveals the love of God, and
conveys the assurance of His willingness to forgive or receive the
sinner; thus it moves men to repentance and faith, and effects their
salvation; so substantially Ritschl.[29] In England much influence has
been exerted by Dr R.W. Dale's _Atonement_ (1875), the special point of
which is that the death of Christ is not required by the personal demand
of God to be propitiated, but by the necessity of honouring an ideal law
of righteousness; thus, "the death of Christ is the objective ground on
which the sins of men are remitted, because it was an act of submission
to the righteous authority of the law by which the human race was
condemned ... and because in consequence of the relation between Him and
us--His life being our own--His submission is the expression of ours,
and carries ours with it ... (and) because in His submission to the
awful penalty of sin ... there was a revelation of the righteousness of
God, which must otherwise have been revealed in the infliction of the
penalties of sin on the human race."[30] This view, however, leads to a
dilemma; if the law of righteousness is simply an expression of the
divine will, satisfaction to law is equivalent to propitiation offered
to God; if the law has an independent position, the view is inconsistent
with pure monotheism.
The present position may be illustrated from a work representing the
more liberal Anglican theology. Bishop Lyttelton in _Lux Mundi_[31]
stated that the death of Christ is propitiatory towards God because it
expressed His perfect obedience, it manifested God's righteous wrath
against sin, and in virtue of Christ's human nature involved man's
recognition of the righteousness of God's condemnation of sin; also
because in some mysterious way death has a propitiatory value; and
finally because Christ is the representative of the human race. Towards
man, the death of Christ has atoning efficacy because it delivers from
sin, bestows the divine gift of life and conveys the assurance of
pardon. The benefits of the atonement are appropriated by "the
acceptance of God's forgiveness in Christ, our self-identification with
Christ's atoning attitude, and then working out, by the power of the
life bestowed upon us, all the (moral and spiritual) consequence of
forgiveness."
At present the belief in an objective atonement is still widely held;
whether in the form of penal theories--the old forensic view that the
death of Christ atones by paying the penalty of man's sin--or in the
form of governmental theories; that the Passion fulfilled a necessity of
divine government by expressing and vindicating God's righteousness. But
there is also a widespread inclination to minimize, ignore or deny the
objective aspect of the atonement, the effect of the death of Christ on
God's attitude towards men; and to follow the moral theories in
emphasizing the subjective aspect of the atonement, the influence of the
Passion on man. There is a tendency to eclectic views embracing the more
attractive features of the various theories; and attempts are made to
adapt, interpret and qualify the imagery and language of older formulae,
in order so to speak, to issue them afresh in new editions, compatible
with modern natural science, psychology and historical criticism. Such
attempts are necessary in a time of transition, but they involve a
measure of obscurity and ambiguity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Atonement: H. Bushnell, _Vicarious Sacrifice_ (1871);
J. McLeod Campbell, _Nature of the Atonement_ (1869); T.J. Crawford,
_Doctrine of the Holy Spirit respecting the Atonement_ (1871); R.W.
Dale, _Atonement_ (1875); J. Denney, _Death of Christ_, _Atonement and
the Modern Mind_ (1903); A. Lyttelton, _Lux Mundi_, pp. 201 ff.
(Atonement), (1889); R. Moberly, _Atonement and Personality_; A.
Ritschl, _Die christliche Lehre van der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung_
(1870-1874); G.B. Stevens, _Christian Doctrine of Salvation_ (1905).
Day of Atonement: articles in Hastings' _Bible Dictionary_, and in the
_Encyclopaedia Biblica_. (W. H. Be.)