ATHLAI ath-lakee), one of the sons of Bebai, who, at Ezra's wish, put away his foreign wife (Ezra x:28), li. C. 459• ATONEMENT (a-ton 'mem), (11 eb. r, kaw far, Li) cover, cancel; Gr. KaraXXar,, kat-al-lag ay', exchange, reconciliation).
As a verb, the Hebrew literally signifies to cover; and, as a noun. a covering. Generally, wherever the word occurs, something that has given serious offense, and produced a permanent state of variance between the parties, is sup posed, and then, in relation to the party offended. it signifies to pacify, to appease, or to render him propitious, as Gen. xxxii :20 ; Ezek. xvi :63. \Vhen applied to sin, it signifies to cover, or to expiate it ; to atone, or make satisfaction for it (Ps. xxxii: ; Lev. xvi :30). \Vhen the term respects the sinner himself, it implies his being covered or protected from punishment, and is rendered a ransom or atonement for him ( Exod. xxi:30; 2 Chron. xxx t 2, 15). This seems to be the plain, unforced meaning of the Hebrew word kawfar. Other words convey the same truth. (a) INctcocoAat, hilaskomai,translated (Heb. t7) "to make recon ciliation." Also Rum. iii:25; tJohn ii:2; iv:to, where the kindred noun is rendered "propitia (b) Xerrpop, Iutron, translated "ransom," "redemption" (Matt. xx.23; Mark x:3o; Luke ii:38; Heb.
Three prominent views have been entertained of the atonement.
(1) View of Anselm. This is connected with the above view of the idea of the atonement as a satisfaction to Divine justice. 1 lis name is eminently identified with it (A. 1) !too).
(2) View of Abelard. Foremost among his opponents of Anselm was Abelard ( A. D. t Lit ). He declared the atonement to be due wholly to the love of God, and taught that there could be nothing in the Divine essence that required satis faction for sin. The death of Christ upon the cross was solely an exhibition of I hvine love Men were to be won to Christ by this supreme act of voluntary self-sacrifice for the welfare of men. Thus Abelard stands as the father of what is known as the moral influence theory.
In cases where the party offending is unable to render adequate atonement in his own person. and where the punishment could not be endured by him without ruining him—as is the case in all capital offenses—if the suffering of another be accepted in his stead, the atonement thus made by a substitute is technically termed a vicarious atonement. This is a case that rarely happens in human governments. Yet this is the case in rela tion to the atonement made by Christ. "Ile was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we ore healed" (Is.
In the New Testament there are also forms of expression in which the idea of substitution. or that Christ stands as our substitute in the econ-, omy of Divine grace, appear with marked em phasis (Rom. v:6-8; t (or. xv :3: Cor. V :21 ; Gal. iii a3; Tit. ii :i4 Pet. ii :24 ; (3) View of Grotius. This celebrated author wrote in defense of the vicarious sufferings of Christ against Socinus (A. D. 1617). Ile main tained that the atonement was grounded not in the nature of God but in the nature of the Divine government. In his view it was a satisfaction to the demands of moral government and not to Divine justice. His view is known as the rectoral or governmental theory.
(4) Modern Views. Between these three views the church of to-day is divided. But to the great truth that a real propitiation has been made by the Lord Jesus Christ every evangelical teacher holds.
(5) Atonement and Redemption. In the strictly evangelical view atonement mist not be confounded with redemption. Between these two terms there are plain differences, and no one without a perception of these differences can treat this great subject with lucidness or accuracy. They differ in object and design, and, of course, are of a different nature, so that things may be truly affirmed of one which cannot be truly affirmed of the other.