The Atonement-Part II by J. H. W.

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 24, 1863

The Atonement—Part II.

By J. H. W.

WHAT THE ATONEMENT IS.

(Continued.)

Having made an atonement for himself, as before noticed, the high priest next took two goats from the people, and cast lots upon them, one to be chosen for a sin offering, the other for a scape-goat. The goat upon which the Lord's lot fell was then slain, and the priest took its blood and went into the sanctuary and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat, in that manner making an atonement for the children of Israel, by blotting out their sins and removing them from the presence of God. That this was the true idea and intent of that work we learn from verses 15–19, wherein it is not only said that the priest made

atonement for the children of Israel, but that he also made atonement for the holy places, cleansing them and hallowing them from the uncleanness of the children of Israel. The uncleanness or sins of the children of Israel could never come directly in contact with the holies of the sanctuary, but only by proxy; for they (the people) were never permitted to enter there. The priest was the representative of the people; he bore their judgment. Ex. xxviii, 30. In this manner the sanctuary of God was defiled; and as the blood was given to make atonement, the priest cleansed the sanctuary from their sins by sprinkling the blood upon and before the mercy-seat in the divine presence. It has been seen that the sinner brought his offering; that it was slain; and that the priest took the blood and made the atonement; and here it is further established that the atonement was made in the sanctuary. This most clearly proves that the killing of the offering did not make the atonement, but was preparatory to it; for the atonement was made in the sanctuary, but the offering was not slain in the sanctuary.

These things, of course, were typical, and have their fulfillment in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. That he is a High Priest, and the only mediator in the gospel will be readily admitted; but the order and manner of his service must be determined by the scriptures. The apostle states that he is a priest after the order of Melchizedek; i. e., a kingly priest; on the throne of the majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary and true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man. Heb. viii, 1. Of course this is the antitype of the earthly sanctuary, of the tabernacle pitched or made by man. He also affirms that if he were on earth he would not be a priest for the evident reason that the priests of the earthly sanctuary were of the tribe of Levi, while our Lord sprang out of Judah of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood, and of which no man gave attendance at the altar. Heb. vii, 13, 14; viii, 4. This will correct a mistake very often made, that the priesthood of our Lord commenced on earth. If he had entered on the work of his priesthood at his baptism, as has been said, he would have acted with those who were types of himself; and if as a priest he had officiated in the temple, it would have been to make offerings typical of his own. Having shown the distinction between the earthly and the heavenly sanctuaries, Paul proceeds to set forth the relation which the ministrations in each sustained to the other, saying of the priests on earth: “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” Heb. viii, 5. As the earthly is the shadow and example, we may compare it with the heavenly, the substance, by which we may gain a more clear 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. xiii, 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 stay the offering; see Lev. i, 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. ix, 12, 24.

By confounding the death of Christ with the atonement, the latter has been supposed to be a general work, made for all mankind. With this I 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. xvi, 29; xxiii, 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 v, 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 iii, 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 efficiency 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. vii, 25.

Another cause of confusion is, that reconciliation and 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. Thus it has been said: “The atonement may exist without reconciliation on the part of man; but reconciliation cannot exist without the atonement.” This is the exact reverse of the truth; and is a mistake growing out of the great error, before mentioned, of confounding the death of Christ with the atonement. This point needs to be carefully examined. J. H. W.

(To be Continued.)