Atonement-No. 16 by John H. Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 26, 1874

Atonement.—No. 16.

By John H. Waggoner

Having shown the distinction between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries, Paul proceeds to set forth the relation which the ministrations in each sustain to the other, saying of the priests on earth: “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” Heb. 8:5. As the earthly is the shadow and example, we may compare it with the heavenly, the substance, by which we may gain a clearer idea of the latter than is afforded us by any other means. Indeed, the comparison is made to our hand by the apostle. Note the following text, in which the distinction I claim between the death of Christ and his work as priest to make atonement, is clearly recognized. “For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.” Heb. 13:11, 12. Thus we learn definitely that, as priest, he makes atonement; but his priesthood is not on earth, but in the sanctuary in Heaven; and that he did not suffer in the sanctuary where atonement is made. It was not necessary, in the type, for the priest to slay the offering; see Lev. 1:4, 5; but it was necessary for the priest to take the blood and with it enter the sanctuary of the Lord to make an atonement. Jesus did not shed his blood as priest, it was shed by sinners; but he did

by “his own blood” enter “into the holy places” not made with hands, of which the earthly were figures, “to appear in the presence of God for us.” Heb. 9:12, 24.

A work entitled, Manual of the Atonement, speaking of the death of Christ 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 at his death, it was not then commenced. This shows how men run into error by losing sight of the distinction between the death of Christ and the atonement. By confounding these, the atonement has been supposed to be general in its application made for all mankind. But this is not the scriptural view of the subject.

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 give 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 actual benefit to be derived from 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.

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 the reconciliation of all who will accept it, 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.

And yet, clear as is the distinction, there is a very close relation between them. Thus, the death of Christ, the offering of his blood, opens the way for reconciliation. Reconciliation secures an interest in the atonement; and this 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 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, 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.”

J. H. WAGGONER.