The Atonement-Part II by James White

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 1, 1863

The Atonement—Part II.

By James White

(Continued.)

A few remarks may be necessary on the subject of

RECONCILIATION.

There is no intimation in the Scriptures that reconciliation is mutual between God and man; though many writers affirm this, and large denominations endorse it. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; but who reconciles him to us? No one; for no such work is done or required. It is supposed that God must also be reconciled, because he is offended; he is angry with the sinner. This, of course, is because of his justice, which can never be reconciled to sin. When the sinner is reconciled to God he is no longer regarded as a sinner; justice being satisfied by the substitute, is turned away from him, and therefore no further reconciliation can be necessary. The difference of position between God and man in this respect is so marked that it need not be mistaken. "The carnal mind is enmity against God." "God so loved the world," &c. "God commended his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." "We love God because he first loved us." Christ is not only a voluntary Saviour, but he is the gift of the Father's love. He did not die to cause the Father to love man; but he died because the Father did love us; and to make it possible to manifest his mercy to the transgressor consistent with his infinite justice. I cannot understand how it would be necessary, or even possible, to reconcile one to us, who already loves us so deeply, and is willing to do so much for us. Reconcile, says Webster, is "to call back into union and friendship the affections which have been alienated." "Reconciled, brought into friendship from a state of disagreement and enmity." All the enmity is on the part of man; of course, all the reconciliation must be effected for him. The following statement from Dr. Barnes I can only read with astonishment:

"Reconciliation is in 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 his pardon effected? According to that view, God as our enemy loved us; as our enemy gave his Son to die for us; as our enemy was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself; as our enemy pardons us for Christ's sake; and only becomes our friend after he has pardoned us! Surely there is neither Scripture nor reason in this; and yet, as I conceive, it is the necessary conclusion of that view which supposes that God is reconciled to man in the gospel.

Our Saviour's words in Matt. v, 23, 24, show that the offender, and not the offended, is the party to be reconciled. "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, . . . first be reconciled to thy brother." The same is shown again in 1 Cor. vii, 11. "Let not the wife depart from her husband; but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." In both these cases the wrong-doer is instructed to be reconciled. And this is doubtless the idea conveyed by the term in its general use in the Scriptures.

RECONCILIATION PRECEDES THE ATONEMENT.

Several words in the Hebrew are rendered atonement in the English; principally kippooreem, in the Septuagint katharismos and hilasmos. In Lev. xvi, the Hebrew has kah-phar, in the Septuagint exilasmos, defined expiation; to appease, or win over.

It is not to be understood by this that God is changed in temper or disposition; the sinner only is changed. It is also obviously erroneous to ascribe a difference of feeling to the Father and Son, in the work of human redemption.

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 ii, 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 where the work is so minutely described as is that of the atonement in Lev. xvi. 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. xxxii, 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 iii, 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. 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.

I say the atonement is the last work of our High Priest, accomplished just before his second coming. If this be made to appear from the Scriptures, it will be still more evident that reconciliation must precede it. In Dan. viii, 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. xvi, 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. viii, 14, is equivalent to saying, "Unto two thousand and 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 viii and ix of Daniel; for chapter ix is in part explanatory of chapter viii, the explanation of the time (2300 days) being given in the latter, not in the former. Note the following points: 1. Gabriel was commanded to make Daniel understand the vision. 2. He explained in chap. viii 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 chap. ix Gabriel said he had come to give him understanding, and commanded him to "consider the vision." 6. No vision had been mentioned since chap. viii, which shows that Gabriel had reference to the same vision which he was commanded to make him understand in that chapter. 7. In chap. ix 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 70 weeks commence with the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, B. C. 457. See Ezra vii. 10. The 70 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 70 weeks are not cut off from the 2300 days, that is, if the 70 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. ix we have a clue to the 2300 days of Dan. viii, and to understand the 70 weeks of Dan. ix, is also to understand the 2300 days of Dan. viii, 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 70, 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 antitypinal "sanctuary and true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." Heb. viii, 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. xvi, 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. x, 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, 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. xxviii, 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.

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. ix, 23. Accordingly he says that Christ entered into the holy place, 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. W.

(To be Continued.)