Atonement in Biblical Traditions

Abstract Atonement is often understood in terms of theological models that explain how human beings are reconciled to God. Importing such theories into biblical texts, however, can lead to serious distortions. For example, the vast majority of occurrences of the word “atonement” in English Bibles are found in the priestly source of the Pentateuch, where it translates the Hebrew verb kippēr (remove by wiping away). In this context, kippēr does not refer to the endpoint of reconciliation (at-one-ment) nor to the appeasement of divine wrath but to the ritual act of cleansing Yahweh’s sanctuary from the pollution caused by sin and ritual impurity. Other biblical writers employed kippēr more broadly, applying it to realities such as divine anger, land defilement, impending disaster, and grave sin. In these contexts, the notion that Yahweh can kippēr wanton transgressions presupposes an act of divine clemency that transcends the cultic mechanisms of reconciliation. Ultimately, the prophetic hope is that Yahweh will use the exile to remove the enduring consequences of Israel’s sins. When rendering kippēr into Greek, the translators of the LXX Pentateuch preferred the verb exhilaskomai. Although they understood that kippēr could carry the sense “to purify,” they selected a term more commonly associated with “propitiation” of a deity. Subsequent translators had to decide whether to follow this precedent or to render kippēr in ways that more closely reflected its contextual meaning. Broadly speaking, they remained consistent in using kippēr in sacrificial contexts with exhilaskomai, while employing a range of terms, including exhilaskomai, in nonsacrificial contexts. Early Jewish and Christian traditions expanded the concept of atonement well beyond the priestly source. Practices such as penitential prayer, fasting, and almsgiving came to be seen as means of attaining moral purification and release from sin-debt. Certain traditions attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament envision eschatological atonement at the end of exile and anticipate a future restoration following a period of “affliction.” Some also depict heavenly priests performing atonement in a celestial temple, including on a final, cosmic Day of Atonement. Additionally, the motif of vicarious suffering—rooted in the metaphor of the exile as “payment” for Israel’s sins—plays a central role in early Christian atonement theology, wherein Jesus’s death functions as a lutron (ransom payment) for the sins of the people. Atonement thus emerges as a dynamic and evolving concept, continually reinterpreted through engagement with both biblical and postbiblical traditions. In Judaism, it remains deeply connected to priestly rituals and rabbinic interpretation; in Christianity, it is most commonly expressed through traditional models (e.g., Christus Victor, satisfaction, and moral exemplar) that seek to articulate the redemptive significance of Jesus’s death and resurrection.