What the Atonement Is by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Jan 24, 1884

What the Atonement Is.

By Editor

(Concluded.)

We might quote much to show the prevalence of the error, that the Atonement was made on the cross, but that is not necessary. The “Manual of the Atonement,” from which we have before quoted, says:—

“When he had completed his mediatorial work, he meekly yielded himself up into the hands of his heavenly Father, saying, ‘Into thy hands I commit my spirit.’”

So far from his “mediatorial work” being completed when he was on the cross, it had not yet commenced. The mediatorial work is the work of the priest, which he had not entered upon when he died. Paul says he entered into Heaven “by his own blood,” “now to appear in the presence of God for us.” But if his mediatorial work was completed when he was on earth, even before his death, as the above quotation would have it, then he cannot be a mediator now! and all that the Scriptures say of his priesthood on the throne of his Father in Heaven, there making intercession for us, is incomprehensible or erroneous. By thus confounding the sacrifice or death of Christ with the Atonement, the latter is supposed to be a general work, made for all mankind. With this we cannot agree. That Christ died for all, is distinctly stated, but we have seen that that was only preparatory to the Atonement, and it is in the Atonement that application is made of the blood to the full removal of sin. This is shown also in the type. The goat of the sin offering was slain for the people, and, of course, was offered to meet the wants of all; but while the priest made the atonement, they were required to “afflict their souls,” or come as humble penitents before the Lord, and whosoever did not should be cut off from among the people. Lev. 16:29; 23:27-29. This, then, was required of them individually, in that day, in order that their sins might be atoned for by the priest; for we cannot suppose that they would be cut off whose sins were actually blotted out, or removed from the presence of the judge, by the blood of the offering with which the sanctuary was cleansed from sin.

The same is also taught by Peter, who says that God exalted Jesus, who was slain, to be a prince and Saviour, to grant repentance and forgiveness of sins. Acts 5:30, 31. Now that “he died for all” there can be no question; and his death is absolute and without condition. But not so the Atonement; for Peter says again, “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord,” &c. Acts 3:19. We have found that, when the priest made the atonement, he took the blood and cleansed the sanctuary of God from the sins wherewith it had been defiled; and this is the only act which will answer to the expression of blotting out the sins, for blood was the only thing that would remove them. Hence, while the blood of Christ was shed for all, the efficacy of that blood in atoning for, or blotting out, sin, is contingent, it availing only for those who will repent and be converted. He died for the world—he died for all; and he is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him. Heb. 7:25. But he will save no others.

Another cause of confusion is this, that reconciliation and the Atonement are often supposed to be the same; and where the distinction is recognized their relation is not always observed, a disregard of which tends to about the same result as a denial of the distinction. Thus it has been said: “The Atonement may exist without reconciliation, but reconciliation cannot exist without the Atonement.” This is exactly the reverse of the true order, and the error is the result of confounding the death of the offering with the Atonement. It is quite true that reconciliation has the Atonement in view, but it must precede the Atonement. The death of Christ opens the way for reconciliation to all, but no one can have his sins actually atoned for or blotted out who rejects the offering of Christ, or who is not reconciled to God.

It is admitted that there is a close relation between the two; but nearness of relation does not argue identity. The death of Christ, the offering of his blood, opens the way for reconciliation. Reconciliation secures an interest in the Atonement; and this in turn is made with the blood previously shed. The offering of Christ is the corner-stone of the whole work, for “without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” It is for this reason that we are so constantly directed to the cross of Christ. Without this, there could be neither reconciliation nor atonement. But that the relation and order of the work is as we here state, namely, that his death, and reconciliation through his blood, look forward to his priestly work of atonement, is proved by the words of Paul in Rom. 5:10. “For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” Reconciliation first; salvation as the result.

Two views are held by different classes of theologians on the subject of reconciliation. One, that reconciliation is on the part of man only; the other, that reconciliation is mutual—that God is reconciled to man as well as man to God. It very frequently happens that controversy arises between men from a misapprehension of each other's meaning, and this is doubtless much the case on this subject. If it be shown that reconciliation must be on the part of an enemy or of the offending party only, then the first-named view is correct. But if by reconciliation is also meant that the justice of God must be appeased in behalf of the offender, the last view is the true one. We might say that both are correct, according to the two constructions put upon the word; and reasons can be given for both, as most words allow of different shades of meaning. On this subject Dr. Barnes makes a very strange statement. He says:—

“Reconciliation” is in fact produced between God and man by the atonement. God becomes the friend of the pardoned sinner.”—Atonement, p. 268.

Passing over his reversion of the actual order, we remark that this is equivalent to saying that God is not the friend, but the enemy, of the sinner before he is pardoned. But how, then, is pardon effected? The Saviour said that “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” Did he, as our enemy, love us? was he, as our enemy, in Christ, reconciling us to himself? and does he, as our enemy, pardon us? and does he only become our friend after he has pardoned us? Now as Dr. Barnes was what is termed a “representative man,” it would be natural for any one, on reading such remarks from him, to judge that the doctrine itself was absurd.

While it is beyond denial that God loved the world and gave his Son to die for the world, it is equally true, and very evident, that the death of Christ does not take anything from our actual guilt. We are as deserving of punishment as if he had never died. And, if we are not reconciled to God; if we do not so accept the offering of Christ as to appropriate it as our own, and to cease our violations of the divine law, that offer avails nothing for us. The justice of God stands arrayed against us as really as if his Son had never died. His death is an offering to the divine law—a vindication of the integrity and justice of the divine Government, but not so as to make our pardon inconsistent with free grace. Andrew Fuller, the eminent Baptist author, says:—

“Free grace, according to Paul, requires a propitiation, even the shedding of the Saviour's blood, as a medium through which it may be honorably communicated.”

And again, speaking of sacrifices for sin, he says:—

“All agree in the idea of the displeasure of the Deity being appeasable by an innocent victim being sacrificed in the place of the guilty.”

This must be the correct idea. The justice or displeasure of the Deity is rendered appeasable by the sacrifice, but is really appeased by the mediation of our High Priest. If reconciliation may be used in this sense, then our version of Eze. 16:63 may be allowable: “And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord; that thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God.” Though we think it would admit of a translation somewhat different, we see no reason for objecting to this, considering that God's justice must be appeased (pacified); in other places represented as the turning away of his anger from the violator of his law.

We have no disposition to find fault with the “Authorized Version,” that is, the commonly received translation, of the Scriptures. We have great reason to be thankful for it, and for the great blessing it has proved to the world. But all must admit that it has defects, and these are in some cases of such a nature as to obscure a truth which might be made plain by a more judicious rendering. On the subject before us we must commend the Revised Version of the New Testament as giving much the clearer view. Thus, in Rom. 5:11, the A. V. translates katallagee, atonement, which is incorrect. The Revision properly renders it, reconciliation. In Heb. 2:17, the A. V. renders hilaskomai, to make reconciliation, which is also incorrect. The Revision renders it, propitiation; it might properly be rendered, atonement. Whiting's Translation so renders it. Other translations agree with the Revision in both texts. In both Testaments the reader will find some difficulty in understanding this subject if guided by the translation only, as it is not always easy to express the various shades of meaning in a translation; and in this matter it appears evident that the translators of the A. V. did not closely mark distinctions which clearly exist. As evidence of this, we notice that the word “atonement” occurs but once in this version of the New Testament, Rom. 5:11, and there by a mistranslation, as has been noticed. Neither it nor its relative, expiation, properly occurs in the version. But the fact, the thing expressed by these terms is referred to directly by the writers of the New Testament. Nothing but a careful study of the Levitical law can give us a clear understanding of the doctrine. It is for this reason, as we believe, that the closing words of the Old Testament, in a prophecy referring to the very last times of the present dispensation, say, “Remember the law of Moses.” The law of Moses gives us a faithful “pattern,” or “shadow and example” of the work of our High Priest in Heaven, so important for us to understand who live in the time when his work is soon to close, and his coming is near, to save all “who look for him,” and to take vengeance upon them who know not God and obey not the gospel. Heb. 9:28; 2 Thess. 1:7-10.

Whatever may be thought of the application of the word “reconciliation,” all must admit that there is a vast difference in the position of the parties. Man is a rebel, an enemy to his Maker. God, though he loves man in his ruined condition, is a just Governor. His love can certainly go no farther, and grant no more, than justice can permit. Justice must be appeased; and while the offering makes it possible to pardon consistent with justice, it leaves us guilty, worthy of the condemnation under which

we rest. A complete vindication of the righteousness of the law is found in the sacrifice of the Son of God; but, as concerns the sinner, personally, he rests under condemnation still, until the mediation of Christ brings him into such harmonious relations with the divine Government that it will not endanger its principles, nor reflect dishonor upon the Governor, to freely forgive him and take him back into his favor.

When we consider that the sacrifice is the means whereby the Atonement is made, we can readily understand how hilasmos is used in 1 John 2:2, defined by Liddell & Scott, a means of appeasing, an expiatory sacrifice. Jesus Christ is the propitiation—the sacrifice to divine justice, for all. It is by means of his intercession, his pleading his blood, that probation is given and mercy offered to the whole world.

But it cannot too often be pressed upon the mind of the impenitent that probation, and the offer of mercy through the blood of Christ which was shed for all, does not secure the salvation of all. Says David, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity.” Ps. 32:1, 2. This blessing does not come upon all, but it is placed within the reach of all by the death of Christ. And whose sins will be covered? Evidently theirs who have confessed and forsaken their sins, or who have been reconciled to God. This is exactly the order of the work described by Peter in Acts 3:19. “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” This blotting out is by the blood which the High Priest brings into the sanctuary to cleanse it from sin. We cannot, for a moment, suppose that the sin of any will be blotted out or covered, who still maintains his opposition and enmity to God; but he who confesses and forsakes shall find mercy; that is, he who is reconciled shall have his sins forgiven and blotted out. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9. “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” Prov. 28:13.

As the work of the high priest under the law in making atonement for all the people, was but the work of one day, a short time compared to the continual work of intercession, and that day clearly specified, so is the atonement by our High Priest, Jesus Christ, in the antitype. It is accomplished just before his second coming. If this be made to appear it will be another and a strong proof that reconciliation is distinct from it, and must precede it. But this will be examined when we come to speak of the Judgment. EDITOR.