241 – Atonement Viewd as Reconciliation

SEMESTER 3

241 – Atonement Viewd as Reconciliation

BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CORRESPONDENCE

COURSE: SOTERIOLOGY III LESSON # 41
ATONEMENT VIEWED AS RECONCILIATION

Read Rom. 5:1-11.

INTRODUCTION:

1. Romans 5:11 is the only place in the New Testament where the word atonement appears.
2. It appears approximately 76 times in the Old Testament.
3. Seven of these 76 times, it is the word (kippur), it is in the plural (atonement).
4. In all the other 69 occurrences it is the word (kaphar) – pronounced kaw-far.
5. The word reconciliation appears 5 times in the Old Tes­tament. Four of these are from the word (kaphar), the other is from (chata) which means “to bear the blame.”
6. The words reconciliation, reconciled and reconciling in the New Testament, come from the very Greek word (katallage) which is translated atonement in Rom. 5:11.
7. We, thus, see that we must view atonement as reconciliation, if we are to view it biblically.

I. RECONCILIATION AS AN ACCOUNTING TERM

1. The word (kaphar) means to cover, not in the sense of hiding, but of making sufficient payment (mutual exchange).

III: A deposit or payment made to a bank equal to the demands occasioned by debts or liabilities.

2. Some, lightly viewing this truth, have seen Christ’s death as a great, indefinite, all-encompassing deposit, or “blank check.”
3. This view cannot satisfy the meaning of kaphar, reconciliation, or atonement.
4. It must rather be seen as a perfect and exact balancing of the books.
5. When we see that it is God, to whom Christ is making payment, the idea of either over or under payment, becomes incompatible with the word reconciliation.
6. We need also to know that it is God who makes the application of the atonement.

II. RECONCILIATION IS A CONCILIATORY TERM

1. By this we mean making peace, or setting two at one. (Eph. 2:13,14)
2. Christ’s work on the cross was to satisfy God’s demand, not man’s, or both as some have supposed.
3. It should be obvious that the work of the cross was not con­ciliatory in the direction of man, for God had not offended man.
4. Man had offended God and reconciliation was made on the cross to God on someone’s behalf.
5. A proper question then is this: Was the work of the cross real or only potential?
6. If we answer potential, we take the position that it is null, without activation.
7. If we assume that man must by “appropriation” activate reconcilia­tion then we count the cross ineffective, without man’s reception or co-operation.
8. Thus, we cannot say we are “reconciled by His death.” (Rom. 5:10)
9. Beware of caricatures at this point:

i. I am not saying that men are saved without faith, or saved in an experimental sense at the time Christ died.
ii. I am saying that all who shall ever stand in His loving presence were reconciled to God on the cross.
iii. We understand it and experience the peace of it in time, but God is not in time.

III. RECONCILIATION AND CALLING

1. Objective reconciliation, (i.e., what God did for us) was completed on the cross.
2. Subjective reconciliation, (i.e., reconciliation experienced) is consummated in calling, regeneration, and conversion.
3. Be sure, however, that each supposes and assures the other. (Rom. 8:29,30)