Chapter 2
Atonement Terminology — The Biblical Vocabulary for the Work of Christ

Introduction: Why Words Matter

Words matter. They especially matter when we are trying to understand the most important event in all of human history — the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. The Bible does not use just one word or one picture to describe what Jesus accomplished when He died and rose again. Instead, Scripture paints with a rich palette of terms, images, and metaphors drawn from the courtroom, the marketplace, the temple, and the battlefield. Each of these words opens a window into a different facet of the same glorious reality: God has acted to rescue sinners through the cross of His Son.

In this chapter, we will take a careful walk through the most important biblical words for the work of Christ — first in the Old Testament (written mostly in Hebrew) and then in the New Testament (written in Greek). I believe this kind of close attention to the Bible's own vocabulary is essential. If we skip past the words that Scripture actually uses, we risk building our understanding of the cross on shaky ground. But when we listen carefully to the Bible's own language, something remarkable emerges: the themes of substitution, sacrifice, redemption, and reconciliation are woven into the very fabric of Scripture's witness to the cross.¹

Think of this chapter as a kind of toolbox. We are gathering the essential tools — the key words and concepts — that we will use again and again throughout the rest of this book. Some of these words may be new to you. Some may be familiar. Either way, I want to make sure that by the end of this chapter, you have a clear and solid grasp of each term. That way, when we encounter these words in later chapters, you will already know what they mean and why they matter.

My thesis for this chapter is straightforward: the Bible uses a rich array of terms, images, and metaphors to describe what Christ accomplished on the cross, and careful attention to this vocabulary — in both Hebrew and Greek — reveals that substitutionary, sacrificial, and judicial categories are woven into the very fabric of the biblical witness, alongside redemptive, reconciliatory, and victory language. These are not competing vocabularies. They are complementary dimensions of one great, multi-faceted reality — with substitution at the center.²

Part One: The Old Testament Vocabulary

The Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew, with small portions in Aramaic. Its vocabulary for atonement is rooted in the world of Israel's worship — the temple, the altar, the sacrificial system, and the covenant relationship between God and His people. Let us examine the most important Old Testament terms one by one.

1. Kipper (כָּפַר) — To Atone, To Cover, To Make Atonement

If there is one Hebrew word that stands at the heart of Old Testament atonement theology, it is kipper (כָּפַר, sometimes written as kaphar). This verb, used in its intensive form (the piel stem), appears over one hundred times in the Old Testament, and it is the main word translated "to make atonement." It appears sixteen times in Leviticus 16 alone — the chapter that describes the Day of Atonement, Israel's most sacred annual ritual.³

What does kipper actually mean? Scholars have proposed several possible meanings, and the beauty of this word is that none of them necessarily excludes the others. David Allen helpfully summarizes four key senses.⁴ First, when God is the subject, kipper can mean "to forgive." Yet in many texts, kipper is something distinct from forgiveness — it is actually the thing that makes forgiveness possible. For example, in Leviticus 4:20, 26, and 31, the priest makes atonement (kipper), and then the person is forgiven. Atonement comes first; forgiveness follows.

Second, kipper can mean "to cleanse" or "to purify." We see this sense clearly in Leviticus 16:30: "For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the LORD from all your sins" (ESV). Third, kipper can carry the sense of "to ransom." Its related noun, kopher (כֹּפֶר), refers to a ransom price — something paid to redeem a life (see Exodus 30:12). In the sacrificial system, the life of the animal is given in place of the life of the worshiper. Fourth, kipper can refer to the averting of God's wrath.⁵

A closely related word is kapporet (כַּפֹּרֶת), which refers to the golden lid on top of the ark of the covenant, usually translated "mercy seat." This is where the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, the most solemn moment in Israel's entire worship year. As we will see shortly, the Greek translation of kapporet in the Old Testament is hilastērion (ἱλαστήριον) — the very word Paul uses in Romans 3:25 to describe what God did through Christ. The mercy seat was the place where God's justice and mercy met — right there, in the blood on the golden cover. And that is precisely what happened at the cross (see Chapter 8 for a full treatment of Romans 3:21–26).⁷

The concept of kipper is further illuminated by one of the most important verses in the entire Old Testament for atonement theology: Leviticus 17:11. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life" (ESV). Three things stand out in this verse. First, blood is the symbol of life — but specifically, life poured out in death. Second, blood makes atonement, and the reason is stated clearly: one life is given for another. The life of the animal is offered on the altar in place of the life of the sinner. Third — and this is often missed — it is God who gives the blood for this atoning purpose. "I have given it to you," He says. The sacrificial system is not a human invention designed to bribe God. It is God's own provision, established by His grace, as the means by which He deals with sin while remaining true to His own justice.⁵⁷

Why does all this matter for our understanding of the atonement? Because kipper shows us that, right from the beginning, God's plan for dealing with sin involved sacrifice, blood, substitution, and the removal of wrath. The very heart of Old Testament worship — making atonement — required that something be given in the sinner's place. This is not a concept that the Reformers invented in the sixteenth century. It is embedded in the vocabulary of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves. And it is this very concept that the New Testament authors saw fulfilled — perfectly and finally — in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.

2. Asham (אָשָׁם) — Guilt Offering, Trespass Offering

The asham (אָשָׁם) is one of the five main types of sacrifice described in Leviticus, and its significance for atonement theology is enormous. The word can refer both to the concept of guilt itself and to the specific sacrifice offered to deal with that guilt — the "guilt offering" or "trespass offering" (Leviticus 5:14–6:7). The asham was offered for specific offenses — cases where someone had violated God's holy things or wronged another person. It involved not only sacrifice but also restitution, making it a deeply personal and relational act.

What makes the asham especially significant is its appearance in Isaiah 53:10, the climactic chapter about the Suffering Servant. The prophet writes: "Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt [asham]" (ESV). Here, the Servant's very life is presented as a guilt offering — a sacrifice that deals with the guilt of others. The sacrificial terminology is explicit: the Servant's death is not an accident, not merely an example, not simply a tragedy. It is an asham — a guilt offering before God. This is substitutionary sacrifice at its clearest in the Old Testament (see Chapter 6 for the full exegesis of Isaiah 53).⁸

3. Chattath (חַטָּאת) — Sin, Sin Offering

Like asham, the Hebrew word chattath (חַטָּאת) does double duty. It refers both to sin itself and to the sacrifice offered to deal with sin — the "sin offering" described in Leviticus 4:1–5:13. The sin offering was prescribed for unintentional sins — situations where someone violated God's commands without realizing it. The ritual involved the offerer laying hands on the animal, the animal being killed, and the priest applying the blood in specific ways depending on the status of the person who sinned.⁹

The fact that the same Hebrew word means both "sin" and "sin offering" is itself theologically suggestive. It points toward the deep connection between sin and sacrifice — a connection that the New Testament makes explicit when Paul writes that God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21, ESV). Many scholars believe that "made him to be sin" carries the overtone of "made him to be a sin offering" — the very chattath language of Leviticus (see Chapter 9 for a full discussion of 2 Corinthians 5).¹⁰

4. Padah (פָּדָה) — To Ransom, To Redeem

The verb padah (פָּדָה) means "to ransom" or "to redeem," and it belongs to the language of liberation and release. In ordinary usage, it described the payment of a price to set someone free — for example, redeeming a firstborn child or freeing a slave. But the word takes on rich theological meaning when it is applied to God's actions. God "redeemed" (padah) Israel from slavery in Egypt (Deuteronomy 7:8; 13:5). God "ransoms" His people from their enemies (2 Samuel 7:23; Psalm 25:22).

The concept of padah involves a cost. Redemption is never free. Someone or something must be given in exchange for the one who is released. This is precisely the logic that runs through the New Testament when it speaks of Christ giving His life as a "ransom" for many (Mark 10:45). The price of our redemption was not silver or gold but "the precious blood of Christ" (1 Peter 1:18–19, ESV).¹¹

5. Ga'al (גָּאַל) — To Redeem, To Act as Kinsman-Redeemer

The verb ga'al (גָּאַל) adds another dimension to the concept of redemption. While padah focuses on the payment of a price, ga'al emphasizes the personal relationship between the redeemer and the one being redeemed. The go'el (גֹּאֵל), or "kinsman-redeemer," was a close family member who had the right and the responsibility to step in when a relative was in trouble — to buy back family land, to redeem a relative from slavery, or to avenge a wrongful death (see Leviticus 25:25–55; Numbers 35:19–27; Ruth 3–4).¹²

This is deeply personal language. The redeemer is not a stranger; the redeemer is family. And this is exactly how Scripture applies the term to God. "Fear not, for I have redeemed you [ga'al]; I have called you by name, you are mine," God says in Isaiah 43:1 (ESV). Job cries out, "I know that my Redeemer [go'el] lives" (Job 19:25, ESV). God Himself is the kinsman-redeemer who steps in to buy back His people from bondage. The New Testament fulfillment is breathtaking: Jesus Christ, by taking on our human nature, became our "kinsman" — and then redeemed us at the cost of His own life.¹³

6. Nasa (נָשָׂא) — To Bear, To Carry (Sin)

The verb nasa (נָשָׂא) is one of the most important substitutionary terms in the Old Testament. In ordinary usage, it simply means "to lift" or "to carry." But when it is used with "sin" or "iniquity" as its object, it takes on a weighty theological meaning: to "bear sin" — that is, to take upon oneself the guilt and consequences that belong to someone else.¹⁴

This is the language of Isaiah 53. "Surely he has borne [nasa] our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Isaiah 53:4, ESV). "He bore [nasa] the sin of many" (Isaiah 53:12, ESV). The Servant does not merely suffer alongside the people; He takes up what belongs to them. He carries their sin. This is substitutionary language at its most direct and unmistakable. The related verb sabal (סָבַל, "to carry as a heavy burden") appears in the same verse (53:4), reinforcing the picture of the Servant staggering under the weight of sins that are not His own.

Why is this significant? Because in the Old Testament, to "bear sin" (nasa avon or nasa chet) consistently means to bear the consequences and punishment of that sin. When Cain says, "My punishment is greater than I can bear [nasa]" (Genesis 4:13, ESV), he is talking about bearing the consequence of his own guilt. When the Suffering Servant bears the sin of many, He is bearing what rightfully belonged to them. This is substitution. He takes their place.¹⁵

7. Shalach (שָׁלַח) — To Send Away

The verb shalach (שָׁלַח) means "to send" or "to send away." Its atonement significance appears most vividly in the scapegoat ritual of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). After the high priest confessed the sins of Israel over the live goat's head, laying his hands on it, the goat was "sent away" (shalach) into the wilderness, carrying the people's sins far from them (Leviticus 16:21–22).

This ritual powerfully illustrates the removal of sin — sin is not merely forgiven in some abstract sense; it is carried away, sent far from the people, never to return. The psalmist captures the same idea: "As far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us" (Psalm 103:12, ESV). As we will see in Chapter 5, the scapegoat ritual is one of the most vivid pictures of substitutionary atonement in the entire Old Testament. The goat goes where the people should have gone. It carries what the people could not carry. It is sent away so that they can stay.¹⁶

8. Tsedaqah (צְדָקָה) — Righteousness, Justice

The noun tsedaqah (צְדָקָה) means "righteousness" or "justice," and it describes the moral order that God has established. In the Old Testament, God's righteousness is not merely a personal quality; it is an active force. God acts righteously — He sets things right. He defends the oppressed, punishes the wicked, and establishes justice. This concept is foundational for understanding the cross, because the atonement is the supreme act by which God "sets things right" — dealing with sin justly while also extending mercy to sinners.¹⁷

The relationship between righteousness and atonement is beautifully captured in Psalm 85:10: "Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other" (ESV). At the cross, this poetic vision becomes reality. God's righteousness (His justice, His commitment to setting things right) and God's peace (His reconciliation, His mercy toward sinners) meet perfectly. Neither is sacrificed. Both are honored. This is what makes the cross so extraordinary — and this is why substitutionary atonement matters. Only through a substitute can God be both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:26).

Part Two: The New Testament Vocabulary

The New Testament was written in Greek, and its vocabulary for the atonement builds directly on the Old Testament foundation we have just surveyed. The New Testament authors were steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures, and when they searched for words to describe what Jesus accomplished on the cross, they reached for language that was rooted in sacrifice, redemption, reconciliation, and judicial deliverance. Let us now examine the most important New Testament atonement terms.

1. Hilastērion / Hilasmos (ἱλαστήριον / ἱλασμός) — Propitiation / Expiation

No single Greek word has generated more scholarly debate in atonement theology than hilastērion (ἱλαστήριον) and its related noun hilasmos (ἱλασμός). These words belong to the hilaskomai word group, and they appear in some of the New Testament's most important atonement passages: Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, and 1 John 4:10. The debate centers on a seemingly simple question: Do these words mean "propitiation" (turning away God's wrath) or "expiation" (cleansing or removing sin)?¹⁸

To understand the debate, we need a little background. In the mid-twentieth century, the influential British scholar C. H. Dodd argued that the biblical usage of the hilaskomai word group had moved away from its pagan Greek meaning of "appeasing an angry deity." Dodd contended that in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) and in the New Testament, these words meant "to expiate" — that is, to cleanse sin, to wipe it away — rather than "to propitiate" — that is, to turn away God's personal wrath. Dodd's argument was enormously influential. Many modern Bible translations followed his lead, choosing "expiation" or "atoning sacrifice" instead of "propitiation."¹⁹

But Dodd's argument did not go unchallenged. The great evangelical scholar Leon Morris responded with a detailed and magisterial study that demonstrated, persuasively in my view, that Dodd had overstated his case. Morris examined every occurrence of the hilaskomai word group in the Septuagint and the New Testament. He showed that while the biblical writers certainly transformed the pagan Greek concept — removing any notion of human beings bribing or manipulating God — they did not strip away the personal dimension of God's response to sin. In the Bible, God is not an impersonal force that merely needs to be "cleaned up" from defilement; God is a holy Person who is rightly and justly opposed to sin. Morris demonstrated that the hilaskomai word group in the Bible does indeed include the idea of dealing with sin (expiation), but it also includes the idea of averting God's wrath (propitiation). You cannot neatly separate the two. When God provides atonement for sin, He is simultaneously cleansing the defilement of sin and satisfying the demands of His own holy justice. The personal dimension — God's settled opposition to sin, which the Bible calls "wrath" — is not removed from the equation; it is addressed.²⁰

We might put it this way. If we say only "expiation" — sin is cleansed, defilement is removed — we have an incomplete picture. We have dealt with sin as a stain but not as an offense against a holy God. If we say only "propitiation" — God's wrath is turned aside — we risk losing the dimension of purification and transformation. The biblical vocabulary holds both together. Atonement deals with sin in all its dimensions: as a stain that needs cleansing, as a debt that needs paying, as an offense that needs addressing, and as a broken relationship that needs healing. The hilaskomai word group captures this multi-dimensional reality in a single word family.

Allen concurs with Morris's conclusion, noting that "propitiation" is "a fundamental theological concept in a biblical doctrine of the atonement." He points out that propitiation, properly understood, is "an act prompted by God's love, mercy, and grace, whereby His holiness and justice are demonstrated via substitutionary sacrifice for sin."²¹ This is crucial. Propitiation in the biblical sense is not about a sinful human trying to bribe or appease an angry god with gifts — that is the pagan distortion. Biblical propitiation is about God Himself providing the means by which His own justice is satisfied and His own wrath is turned away. As John writes, "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10, ESV). God is both the one who provides the propitiation and the one who is propitiated. He is the subject and the object of the atoning act.²²

There is another layer to this word. In Romans 3:25, Paul writes that God put forward Christ Jesus as a hilastērion — the very word used in the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) to translate the Hebrew kapporet, the "mercy seat" on the ark of the covenant. Many scholars believe that Paul is deliberately identifying Christ as the new mercy seat — the place where God's justice and mercy meet in the blood of sacrifice. If this is correct, then Paul is saying something breathtaking: Jesus Himself is the mercy seat. He is the place where atonement happens. He is where the blood is applied. He is where God's righteous wrath and God's saving love converge (see Chapter 8 for a full discussion).²⁴

2. Katallagē (καταλλαγή) — Reconciliation

The Greek noun katallagē (καταλλαγή, "reconciliation") and its verbal forms (katallassō, καταλλάσσω, "to reconcile"; apokatallassō, ἀποκαταλλάσσω, "to reconcile completely") express one of the most personal and relational dimensions of what Christ accomplished on the cross. Reconciliation is about restored relationship — the repairing of a broken connection between two parties. In ordinary Greek usage, the word described the exchange of hostility for friendship.²⁵

Interestingly, it was William Tyndale who, in 1526, first used the English word "atonement" — and he used it to translate this very Greek word, katallagē, in Romans 5:11. Tyndale understood "atonement" as "at-one-ment" — the bringing together of God and humanity into a state of oneness and peace.²⁶

Paul uses reconciliation language in four crucial passages: Romans 5:10–11, 2 Corinthians 5:18–20, Ephesians 2:14–16, and Colossians 1:19–22. Several important features emerge from these texts. First, God is always the one who initiates reconciliation. We did not come looking for God; God came looking for us. As Paul puts it, "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:18, ESV). The offended party takes the initiative. That is remarkable. In ordinary human experience, the wronged person waits for the offender to come and apologize. But God reverses this pattern. Though we were the offenders, God moved first.

Second, reconciliation has both an objective and a subjective side. Objectively, Christ's death on the cross reconciled the world to God — removing every legal barrier to forgiveness (2 Corinthians 5:19). As the theologian James Denney expressed it, reconciliation "is not something which is doing; it is something which is done." It is a finished work. Subjectively, individuals are reconciled to God when they respond in faith (2 Corinthians 5:20). Paul's plea — "We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" — shows that the objective work of reconciliation must be personally received. Third, reconciliation operates on three levels in Paul's thought: personal (2 Corinthians 5:18–21), corporate — bringing Jews and Gentiles together into one body (Ephesians 2:14–16), and cosmic — the reconciliation of "all things" in heaven and on earth (Colossians 1:19–20). Fourth, reconciliation is always through the blood of Christ — it is accomplished through the cross, not apart from it (Colossians 1:20; Ephesians 2:16).²⁷

Allen identifies a further crucial point: reconciliation is something that must be "received" (Romans 5:11). On the basis of an already-accomplished act of reconciliation, the offer of the gospel goes out to all people. Those who receive this reconciliation by faith experience its subjective benefits. Those who refuse it remain in their estrangement — not because the reconciliation was insufficient, but because they have not accepted what God has provided.⁵⁸

How does reconciliation relate to the author's multi-faceted model? Reconciliation describes the relational result of the atonement — what the cross accomplishes between God and humanity. But reconciliation presupposes that something had to happen to make it possible. The barriers had to be removed. The offense had to be dealt with. And that is precisely what substitutionary atonement provides: Christ bore the consequences of our sin in our place, so that the enmity between us and God could be taken away. Reconciliation is the fruit of substitution.

3. Apolytrōsis (ἀπολύτρωσις) — Redemption

The noun apolytrōsis (ἀπολύτρωσις) means "redemption" or "release through the payment of a price." It belongs to a family of Greek words related to lutron (ransom), and it carries the fundamental idea of being set free from bondage through a costly act of deliverance. Paul uses this word in some of the New Testament's most important atonement statements, including Romans 3:24 ("justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"), Ephesians 1:7 ("In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses"), and Colossians 1:14.²⁸

Allen identifies four different Greek terms in the New Testament that belong to the redemption word group.²⁹ First, agorazō (ἀγοράζω) is a commercial term that originally described making a purchase in the marketplace. It appears in 1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23, 2 Peter 2:1, and Revelation 5:9. Second, exagorazō (ἐξαγοράζω), with its prefix meaning "out of," adds the note of purchasing someone out of bondage — buying them out of slavery. Paul uses this word in Galatians 3:13 and 4:5. Third, lutroō (λυτρόω) connotes liberation through the payment of a ransom price. It appears in Luke 24:21, Titus 2:14, and 1 Peter 1:18. Fourth, apolytrōsis itself, which means "release effected by ransom," appears in Luke 21:28, Romans 3:24, 8:23, 1 Corinthians 1:30, Ephesians 1:7, 14, 4:30, Colossians 1:14, and Hebrews 9:15.

What is striking about all of these redemption words is that they presuppose a cost. Redemption is never depicted as a free or easy thing. Fleming Rutledge puts it memorably: the human predicament is "so dire that it cannot be remedied in any ordinary way." Redemption involves a price, and that price, in the New Testament, is the blood of Christ.³⁰ As Peter writes: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" (1 Peter 1:18–19, ESV).

4. Lytron / Antilytron (λύτρον / ἀντίλυτρον) — Ransom

The noun lytron (λύτρον) means "ransom" — the price paid to secure someone's release. It appears in one of the most famous sayings of Jesus: "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom [lytron] for many" (Mark 10:45, ESV; cf. Matthew 20:28). This saying is enormously significant because it comes from the lips of Jesus Himself. Jesus understood His own death as a ransom — a price paid to set others free (see Chapter 7 for a full treatment of Jesus' self-understanding of His death).³¹

The related term antilytron (ἀντίλυτρον) appears in 1 Timothy 2:6, where Paul writes that Christ Jesus "gave himself as a ransom [antilytron] for all." The prefix anti- in this compound word adds a note of substitution — it is a ransom given in the place of all people. This is one of the clearest expressions in the New Testament of the substitutionary nature of Christ's death. He gave Himself as the ransom price instead of us, so that we would not have to pay it ourselves.³²

Rutledge notes that the question of "to whom was the ransom paid?" has occupied theologians for centuries. Some of the early church fathers suggested the ransom was paid to Satan, but this view was rightly set aside. Others have said the ransom was paid to God. But as Rutledge and others have pointed out, pressing the metaphor too far in the direction of identifying a specific "recipient" misses the point. The image of ransom is meant to convey the costliness of our liberation and the reality that Christ gave everything — His very life — to secure our freedom.³³

5. Anti (ἀντί) and Hyper (ὑπέρ) — "In Place Of" and "On Behalf Of"

These two small Greek prepositions may seem insignificant, but they carry enormous weight in the debate over substitutionary atonement. When the New Testament says that Christ died "for" us, which Greek word is being used, and what does it mean?

The preposition anti (ἀντί) means "in the place of," "instead of," or "in exchange for." Its substitutionary force is widely acknowledged. When Jesus says He came to give His life as a ransom anti pollōn — "for many" (Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28) — the preposition strongly suggests that He gave His life in the place of many. He takes their place. He does what they cannot do. He dies so that they do not have to.³⁴

The preposition hyper (ὑπέρ) is more common in the New Testament's atonement statements. It can mean "on behalf of," "for the sake of," or "for the benefit of." Some scholars have argued that hyper indicates only "beneficiary" language — Christ died for our benefit — without necessarily implying substitution. But this argument does not hold up well under close examination. Gathercole demonstrates that when hyper is used in the context of someone dying or suffering for another, the substitutionary sense is very often present. Consider the logic of 2 Corinthians 5:14–15: "One has died for [hyper] all, therefore all have died." Paul's reasoning here only works if Christ's death is substitutionary — He died, and therefore we do not have to. If His death were merely an example or a general benefit, there would be no reason to say "therefore all have died." The "therefore" presupposes substitution: because He died in our place, it is as if we ourselves have died.⁵⁹

Gathercole further shows that Paul's formula "Christ died for [hyper] our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:3) is connected directly to the language of Isaiah 53, where the Servant bears sins in the place of others. The prepositions are "almost interchangeable" in Paul's atonement statements — he can express Christ dying "for" sins using hyper (1 Corinthians 15:3), peri (Galatians 1:4 variant), and dia (Romans 4:25). The choice of preposition in any given verse does not signal a rejection of substitutionary meaning.³⁵

There is a helpful way to think about the relationship between anti and hyper. The word anti emphasizes the "in place of" dimension — the substitution itself. The word hyper emphasizes the "for the benefit of" dimension — the purpose and goal of the substitution. But these are not contradictory; they are complementary. Christ died in our place (substitution) for our benefit (purpose). He stood where we should have stood and bore what we should have borne, and He did it all for us — for our salvation, our freedom, our reconciliation with God. The full New Testament picture requires both prepositions, and both point to the same reality: Christ taking our place at the cross.

Stott makes the key observation that the debate over these prepositions, while important, should not obscure the larger picture. The New Testament's atonement language — taken as a whole — presents Christ as one who does something for us that we could not do for ourselves, and who bears something in our place that we could not bear. Whether the specific Greek preposition in a given verse is anti or hyper, the overall pattern of the New Testament witness is clearly substitutionary: "He" does something so that "we" do not have to.³⁷

6. Dikē / Dikaiosynē (δίκη / δικαιοσύνη) — Justice / Righteousness

The Greek word group related to dikē (δίκη, "justice," "penalty") and dikaiosynē (δικαιοσύνη, "righteousness," "justice") is fundamental to the New Testament's understanding of the atonement. These words describe God's righteous character, His commitment to justice, and His act of "putting things right" through the cross.

In Romans 3:21–26, Paul uses dikaiosynē to describe the "righteousness of God" that has been revealed in the gospel — a righteousness that is received by faith. The key phrase is in Romans 3:26: God did this "to show his righteousness [dikaiosynē] at the present time, so that he might be just [dikaios] and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (ESV). This is one of the most important sentences in the entire Bible for atonement theology. God is both just (righteous, committed to justice) and the one who justifies (declares righteous, pardons) those who believe in Jesus. The cross is where these two realities meet. Without the cross, God could not be both simultaneously — for how can a just judge pardon the guilty? The answer is: through substitutionary atonement. Christ bore the penalty, and now God can extend pardon without compromising His justice (see Chapter 8 for the full exegesis).³⁸

7. Dikaiōsis (δικαίωσις) — Justification

Closely related to the righteousness/justice word group is dikaiōsis (δικαίωσις), which means "justification" — the act of declaring someone righteous, of pronouncing a verdict of "not guilty." This is courtroom language. In the biblical understanding, justification is God's legal declaration that a sinner, who has placed his or her faith in Christ, is now righteous in His sight — not because the sinner has become morally perfect, but because the righteousness of Christ has been credited to their account.³⁹

Paul writes in Romans 4:25 that Jesus "was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification [dikaiōsis]" (ESV). The death of Christ deals with the guilt of our sin; the resurrection of Christ secures our justification — our new standing before God. Justification is the direct result of substitutionary atonement. Because Christ bore the penalty in our place, the verdict of "guilty" that hung over us has been removed, and a verdict of "righteous" has been pronounced. This is not legal fiction; it is the real consequence of what Christ actually accomplished on the cross (see Chapter 36 for a full treatment of justification as an application of the atonement).⁴⁰

8. Thysia (θυσία) — Sacrifice

The noun thysia (θυσία) means "sacrifice" — a general term for an offering made to God. The New Testament consistently describes the death of Christ in sacrificial terms. Paul writes that Christ "gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice [thysia] to God" (Ephesians 5:2, ESV). The letter to the Hebrews is especially saturated with sacrificial language, presenting Christ as the perfect high priest who offered the perfect sacrifice — not the blood of animals, but His own blood — "once for all" (Hebrews 7:27, 9:26, 10:10).⁴¹

Sacrificial language reinforces the substitutionary nature of the atonement. In the Old Testament sacrificial system, the animal took the place of the worshiper. The offerer laid hands on the animal, identifying with it; the animal was killed in the offerer's place; and the blood was offered to God as the means of atonement. When the New Testament calls the death of Christ a "sacrifice," it is saying that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of everything those Old Testament sacrifices pointed toward. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). The shadows have given way to the reality (as discussed in Chapter 10 on Hebrews).⁴²

9. Haima (αἷμα) — Blood

The Greek word haima (αἷμα, "blood") appears throughout the New Testament in connection with the death of Christ. We read of being "justified by his blood" (Romans 5:9), having "redemption through his blood" (Ephesians 1:7), being brought near "by the blood of Christ" (Ephesians 2:13), and having peace "by the blood of his cross" (Colossians 1:20). The letter to the Hebrews declares, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Hebrews 9:22, ESV).⁴³

In modern culture, references to "the blood of Christ" can feel strange or even disturbing. But as Rutledge argues, this motif is "unsurpassed in its metaphorical range, complexity, and richness" and is absolutely central to the Christian proclamation. If we stripped all the blood language from the Bible and the worship of the church, "we would be tearing out much of the heart."⁴⁴

What does "blood" mean in the biblical context? The key Old Testament text is Leviticus 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life" (ESV). Blood is the symbol of life — but specifically, life given up in death. When the New Testament speaks of "the blood of Christ," it is speaking of His sacrificial death — His life poured out for us on the cross. As Stott explains, the blood makes atonement because one life is given for another; it is "the shedding of substitutionary lifeblood."⁴⁵

10. Stauros (σταυρός) — Cross

The word stauros (σταυρός) simply means "cross" — the wooden instrument of execution on which Jesus died. In the first century, crucifixion was the most shameful and agonizing form of death known in the Roman world. It was reserved for slaves, rebels, and the worst criminals. To first-century ears, speaking of a crucified Savior was deeply scandalous. Paul himself acknowledged this: "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:23, ESV).⁴⁶

Yet the cross became the defining symbol of the Christian faith. Why? Because the early Christians understood that the cross was not merely an instrument of death but the means by which God accomplished the salvation of the world. When Paul says, "Far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Galatians 6:14, ESV), he is not celebrating an execution tool. He is celebrating what God accomplished through that tool — the substitutionary, sacrificial, redemptive, victorious work of Christ. The cross is where all the threads of atonement theology converge (as discussed in detail in Chapter 1 and Chapter 24).⁴⁷

11. Pherō (φέρω) — To Bear, To Carry

The Greek verb pherō (φέρω, "to bear" or "to carry") echoes the Old Testament's nasa language and appears in key atonement texts. In 1 Peter 2:24, Peter writes: "He himself bore [anapherō, a compound of pherō] our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed" (ESV). The language here is drawn directly from Isaiah 53, where the Servant "bears" the sins of many. Peter is saying: what Isaiah prophesied, Jesus fulfilled. He carried our sins on the cross — in His own body — and the result is our healing.⁴⁸

Hebrews 9:28 uses the same language: "So Christ, having been offered once to bear [anapherō] the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him" (ESV). The sin-bearing language of the New Testament is unmistakably substitutionary. Christ carries what belonged to us. He bears what we could not bear. And because He has borne it, we do not have to. This is the heart of the gospel.⁴⁹

12. Satisfaction Language

While the word "satisfaction" does not appear in most modern Bible translations, it has been one of the most important theological terms in the history of atonement thought, and it has genuine biblical roots. The concept behind it is this: sin creates a problem that must be dealt with. It is not just a mistake to be overlooked or a bad habit to be corrected. Sin is an offense against God's holy nature, a violation of His just law, and a disruption of the moral order He has established. Something must be done to "satisfy" the demands of God's justice before forgiveness can be rightly extended. As Allen explains, theologians since Anselm have commonly used "satisfaction" to describe what Christ accomplished on the cross in relation to sin: "The death of Christ satisfies both the law of God and the wrath of God."⁶¹

The concept of satisfaction connects closely to several of the terms we have already examined. The Old Testament kipper includes the notion of satisfying God's righteous demands through sacrifice. The New Testament hilastērion conveys the idea of God's justice being satisfied through the propitiatory work of Christ. And the dikaiosynē language of Romans 3:21–26 makes the connection explicit: through the cross, God demonstrates His righteousness — He shows that He takes sin seriously — while simultaneously providing the means by which sinners can be declared righteous. The cross "satisfies" God's justice in the deepest sense: it reveals that God does not simply sweep sin under the rug. He deals with it — fully, finally, and at infinite cost to Himself.

The Catholic Thomistic theologian Philippe de la Trinité helpfully emphasizes that this satisfaction is rooted in love, not in anger. Christ's sacrifice is a "vicarious satisfaction" offered in union with the Father, not against the Father's will. The preeminence of mercy in the satisfaction account is essential: God's justice is real, but it is always exercised within the larger framework of His love. This is a point on which I believe the Catholic and evangelical traditions have important things to learn from each other (see Chapter 23 for a fuller discussion of the Catholic contribution to atonement theology).⁶²

Part Three: Bringing It Together — The Vocabulary and the Multi-Faceted Atonement

Now that we have surveyed the key biblical terms, let me step back and reflect on what we have found. The Bible's vocabulary for the work of Christ is remarkably rich and varied. We have encountered language from the courtroom (justification, righteousness, penalty), from the marketplace (redemption, ransom, purchase price), from the temple (sacrifice, blood, atonement, sin offering, guilt offering), and from the world of personal relationships (reconciliation, peace, bearing one another's burdens). No single word or metaphor captures the full reality of what Christ accomplished. Each term opens a window into a different facet of the same diamond.

But here is what I find striking — and what I want you to notice as we move forward through this book. When you look at the full range of the Bible's atonement vocabulary, the theme of substitution runs through it like a golden thread. The guilt offering (asham) involves an animal dying in the offerer's place. The ransom (lytron) involves a price paid to release someone from bondage. The sin-bearing language (nasa, pherō) involves one person carrying what belongs to another. The scapegoat (shalach) involves one creature being sent away so that the people can stay. Even the propitiation language (hilastērion) presupposes that something has been done on the sinner's behalf to address the demands of divine justice.⁵⁰

This does not mean that substitution is the only category. The reconciliation language reminds us that the atonement restores relationships. The redemption language reminds us that the atonement sets captives free. The victory language (which we will encounter in later chapters — see Chapter 21 on Christus Victor) reminds us that the atonement defeats the powers of evil. All of these are genuine and important dimensions of the cross. But none of them makes full sense without substitution at the center. Christ reconciles us to God by taking our place. Christ redeems us by paying the price in our stead. Christ conquers evil by bearing its worst effects in Himself.⁵¹

Hans Urs von Balthasar, the great Catholic theologian, helpfully summarized five main features of the atonement in the New Testament. First, the Son gives Himself "for us." Second, the Son gives Himself for us by exchanging places with us. Third, the Son saves us from something — He sets us free. Fourth, the Son saves us for participation in the life of God. Fifth, the Son accomplishes all of this out of obedience to the Father, who initiated the entire process motivated by His love.⁵² Notice how substitution and love work together in this summary. The Son takes our place — not under compulsion, but freely, in love, at the Father's initiative. This is what the Bible's vocabulary reveals when we listen carefully to it.

I also want to underscore a point that will become increasingly important as this book unfolds. The substitutionary language of the Bible is not cold, mechanical, or impersonal. It is drenched in love. God provides the sacrifice. God Himself is the kinsman-redeemer. God puts forward Christ as the hilastērion. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. From start to finish, the atonement is God's initiative, God's gift, God's costly love in action. The vocabulary of substitution is also, at every point, the vocabulary of love. When I say that substitution is at the center of the atonement, I am not setting substitution against love. I am saying that substitution is how God's love operates at the cross. The self-giving love of the Triune God — Father, Son, and Spirit acting in unified purpose — is the motor that drives every facet of the atonement, and substitution is the central expression of that love (see Chapter 20 for the full treatment of the Trinitarian dimension of the atonement).⁵³

Part Four: Common Objections to This Vocabulary

Before we close, let me briefly address three common objections that are sometimes raised against taking the Bible's atonement vocabulary at face value.

First objection: "These are just metaphors. They should not be pressed too literally." There is truth in this caution. The Bible does use metaphors — ransom, sacrifice, courtroom — drawn from everyday life to describe the atonement. And we should be careful not to press any single metaphor beyond its intended meaning (for example, we should not insist on identifying a literal "recipient" of the ransom payment). But the fact that the Bible uses metaphors does not mean the realities they point to are unreal. When Paul says Christ "redeemed" us, the metaphor of the slave market is the vehicle, but the reality of liberation through Christ's costly death is genuine. Good metaphors describe real things. The atonement vocabulary of the Bible uses concrete, earthy images to describe something that truly happened: God, in the person of His Son, bore the consequences of human sin to rescue sinners.⁵⁴

Second objection: "The substitutionary and penal language is a later theological development, not present in the biblical text itself." This is a claim we will address at length in later chapters, but the vocabulary survey we have just completed already begins to answer it. Words like nasa (bearing sin), asham (guilt offering), hilastērion (propitiation/mercy seat), lytron/antilytron (ransom/substitute-ransom), and the prepositions anti and hyper are not later theological inventions. They are in the biblical text itself. The language of substitution does not need to be imposed on the Bible; it rises naturally from the Bible's own words.⁵⁵

Third objection: "The propitiation language implies an angry God who needs to be appeased, which is a pagan concept." This objection confuses biblical propitiation with pagan appeasement. In pagan religion, humans try to bribe or pacify an unpredictable, capricious deity. In the Bible, it is God Himself who provides the propitiation — out of His own love. As 1 John 4:10 makes clear, propitiation originates in the love of God, not in human manipulation. To remove propitiation from the Bible's vocabulary is to lose something essential: the truth that God's justice is real, that sin has consequences, and that God Himself has borne those consequences in Christ. That is not pagan; it is the very heart of the gospel.⁵⁶

Conclusion

We have covered a great deal of ground in this chapter, and I want to close by pulling the threads together. The Bible's vocabulary for the atonement is astonishingly rich. In the Old Testament, we found terms for atonement (kipper), guilt offering (asham), sin offering (chattath), ransom (padah), kinsman-redemption (ga'al), sin-bearing (nasa), sending away (shalach), and righteousness (tsedaqah). In the New Testament, we found terms for propitiation and expiation (hilastērion/hilasmos), reconciliation (katallagē), redemption (apolytrōsis), ransom (lytron/antilytron), substitutionary prepositions (anti/hyper), justice and righteousness (dikē/dikaiosynē), justification (dikaiōsis), sacrifice (thysia), blood (haima), cross (stauros), and sin-bearing (pherō).

Each of these words illuminates a different dimension of what Christ accomplished. Together, they form a comprehensive and cohesive picture. And running through this picture — like a spine running through a body, like a melody running through a symphony — is the theme of substitution. Christ in our place. Christ bearing our sin. Christ paying our ransom. Christ dying our death. Christ absorbing the consequences we deserved, so that we could receive the blessings we did not deserve.

It is worth pausing to notice something about the range of these terms. They come from very different spheres of human experience. The sacrificial terms (kipper, asham, chattath, thysia, haima) come from the world of worship — the temple, the altar, the priest. The redemption terms (padah, ga'al, apolytrōsis, lytron) come from the world of commerce and slavery — the marketplace, the auction block, the payment of debts. The judicial terms (tsedaqah, dikē, dikaiosynē, dikaiōsis) come from the courtroom — the judge's bench, the legal verdict, the declaration of innocence or guilt. The relational terms (katallagē, nasa) come from the world of personal relationships — broken friendships, burdens carried, peace restored. The fact that Scripture draws on all of these spheres tells us something important: the atonement is too big, too multi-dimensional, too profound to be captured by any single image. We need the temple and the marketplace and the courtroom and the world of personal relationships to begin to understand what Christ has done.⁶⁰

And yet, as I have argued throughout this chapter, these diverse images are not disconnected. They are held together by a common logic — the logic of substitution. In the temple, the sacrifice takes the place of the worshiper. In the marketplace, the ransom is paid instead of the captive. In the courtroom, the just penalty falls on one who stands in the sinner's place. In the relational sphere, the burden is carried by someone other than the one who accumulated it. Everywhere we look in the Bible's atonement vocabulary, we find the same fundamental pattern: someone else steps in, takes our place, and does for us what we could not do for ourselves. That is substitution. And it is the thread that ties everything together.

This vocabulary is not ours to edit. It is the Bible's own witness to the cross. Our task is to listen to it, learn from it, and let it shape our understanding of the greatest act of love in the history of the universe. In the chapters to come, we will see how each of these terms comes alive in the great biblical texts about the cross — in the sacrificial system of Leviticus (Chapters 4–5), in the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 (Chapter 6), in the words of Jesus Himself (Chapter 7), and in the letters of Paul, Peter, and the author of Hebrews (Chapters 8–12). The foundation is laid. Now let us build upon it.