p. 193 | Atonement: Two Views of Reconciliation

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 2, 1874

Atonement: Two Views of Reconciliation

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Atonement.—No. 17.

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. Our inquiry must then be, Which is the scriptural view?

And first, it is necessary to notice the erroneous methods of expression which lead to misapprehension, whereby controversy on the subject is prolonged. Says Dr. Barnes:—

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

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 as to give his only begotten Son.” Did he, as our enemy, love us? as our enemy, give his Son to die for 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 true 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 offering 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. Says Andrew Fuller, the eminent Baptist author:—

“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. And the Scriptures represent this as a reconciliation of God to man, as is said in Eze. 16:62, 63: “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.”

The same word is here used in Eze. 16:36, that is frequently rendered reconciliation in the Old Testament. This seems to be decisive on this point.

That there is a difference of position of the parties must be admitted. Man is a rebel, an enemy; 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, or pacified; and while the offering makes it possible to pardon consistent with justice, it leaves us guilty, worthy of the condemnation under which we rest. So far as the law is concerned, a full vindication of its justice is found in the death of Christ; so far as the sinner is concerned, 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 and Scott, a means of appeasing. Jesus Christ is the propitiation—the means of appeasing 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. As to the meaning of the term, we are not

entirely confined to lexicons while the work is so minutely described as is that of the atonement in Lev. 16. 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 one 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. It may be said in truth that reconciliation supposes an atonement to be made; for we are reconciled by the blood of the cross, which was shed for the express purpose of making atonement in the heavenly sanctuary. But when we learn, as we do from the Scriptures, that the atonement is a distinct, specific work of the High Priest, and the last work in his priesthood, both the distinction and order here claimed are obvious.

This idea that the atonement is the last work of the High Priest is an important one, and deserves a careful examination. And this is an additional proof that it is subsequent to reconciliation.

In Dan. 8:14, a question is asked concerning the time of the vision recorded in that chapter; the answer is, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” We have seen by Lev. 16, that the cleansing of the sanctuary and making the atonement mean precisely the same thing; for the atonement was made by the High Priest sprinkling the blood upon the mercy-seat and altar, and cleansing them from the sins of the people. Hence, this expression of Dan. 8:14, is equivalent to saying, “Unto two thousand three hundred days, then shall the atonement be made.”

Thus we see there was an appointed time for making the atonement. This is in conformity to the type, where the tenth day of the seventh month was set apart to that work. While this text stands as a part of that “scripture” which is “profitable for instruction,” it is both interesting and profitable to inquire where these two thousand and three hundred days terminate; but to understand this we must trace the connection between chapters 8 and 9 of Daniel; for chapter 9 is in part explanatory of chapter 8, the explanation of the time (2300 days) being given in the latter, not in the former. The following points, if examined with care, will make this clear to every one. (1.) Gabriel was commanded to make Daniel understand the vision. (2.) He explained in chapter 8 the symbols of the kingdoms represented therein. (3.) He did not explain the time of verse 14. (4.) Daniel said he did not understand the vision, which, of course, refers to that part not explained—the time. (5.) In chapter 9, Gabriel said he had come to give him understanding, and commanded him to “consider the vision.” (6.) No vision had been mentioned since chapter 8, which shows that Gabriel had reference to the same vision which he was commanded to make him understand in that chapter. (7.) In chapter 9, he commenced instructing Daniel on time, the only thing in the “vision” not hitherto explained. (8.) He said seventy weeks are determined (Heb., literally cut off) upon thy people. (9.) The seventy weeks commence with the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, B. C. 457. See Ezra 7. (10.) The seventy weeks are evidently “cut off” from the 2300 days; the only period given in the vision. Therefore the time of the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem must be the commencement of the 2300 days. And if the seventy weeks are not cut off from the 2300 days, that is, if the seventy weeks do not mark the commencement of those days, then no explanation of the days was given, and Gabriel never did what he was commanded to do.

But such a supposition will not be urged. Therefore, we must admit that in Dan. 9 we have a clue to the 2300 days of Dan. 8, and to understand the seventy weeks of Dan. 9, is also to understand the 2300 days of Dan. 8, the two periods commencing together. As the Messiah was to be cut off, and cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease in the midst of the last week of the seventy, which was in A. D. 31, and the time that the apostles turned to the Gentiles marks the close of that period, which was in A. D. 34, it is easy to see that the 2300 days would extend 1810 years beyond that time, or to A. D. 1844. And as the angel said the sanctuary should be cleansed at the end of that period, this must refer, not to the typical sanctuary which was destroyed by the Romans in A. D. 70, but to the antitypical “sanctuary and true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.” Heb. 8:1, 2.

Some are ready to object to this view, that the heavenly sanctuary where our High Priest officiates cannot need cleansing—that there is nothing impure in Heaven. The zeal of such to vindicate the honor of heavenly things is parallel with that of Peter, who rebuked the Lord for speaking of his ignominious death: he thought a victor’s crown only was becoming his Master. But God has a plan appointed, and the death of his Son was in that plan; and the mistaken zeal of his servants must not be suffered to interfere with it. In that plan is also the atonement which God’s now exalted Son as priest makes in the sanctuary in Heaven; and it has been sufficiently shown that the atonement is made by cleansing the sanctuary. That this expression of the angel refers to the heavenly, and not to the earthly, sanctuary, may be proved by several considerations.

1. The sanctuary was not cleansed from any impurity of its own, nor from any defilement from use, as ordinary habitations are cleansed, but from sin. Therefore it was cleansed by blood. By referring further to Lev. 16, it will be seen, and will be noticed hereafter, that the design was to take away the sins from the presence of God, and remove them from the throne of judgment. But Paul declares in Heb. 10:4, that “it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sin;” but that was all the blood the priests had to offer in the worldly sanctuary; therefore, as that blood would not remove sin, it follows that the earthly sanctuary was never cleansed at all, except in figure, and never could have been had it remained and the priests still officiated therein till the end of the 2300 days. Nevertheless, the necessity existed; for the people were actual sinners, and needed to have their sins remitted or blotted out.

2. The sanctuary, as before noticed, was defiled by the sins of the people, though the people never came in contact with it. The high priest stood as their representative; he bore their judgment. Ex. 28:30. And as he alone went into the most holy place, it follows that it was defiled by his bearing their sins. Now it is plainly stated that Christ bears our sins—they were laid upon him—he is our representative before his Father. And it seems evident that one of the following positions is true: That Christ has taken the sins of his people, or his people have their sins yet upon them. I think it will be admitted that the former is true; that as the representative and substitute of his saints, he takes their sins. But if he takes them, where does he take them? Certainly where he is. Now it is by virtue of his priesthood that he bears the judgment of the people; but his priesthood is in the heavenly sanctuary. There, according to the type, is where our sins are taken. As a priest he could take them nowhere else.

3. That the heavenly sanctuary is cleansed, is proved by direct declarations of the New Testament. Paul, in writing to the Hebrews respecting the types and their fulfillment in the priesthood of the Son of God, says, “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the Heavens should be purified with these [i. e., with the blood of calves and goats]; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Heb. 9:23. Accordingly he says that Christ entered into the holy places, into Heaven itself, “by his own blood.” Verse 12. This is the better sacrifice, or blood, by which the heavenly things are purified or cleansed.

J. H. Waggoner.