Some of our detractors from the faith endeavor vainly to make it appear that atonement was "wholly accomplished on the cross," and therefore wholly outside the sanctuary. This view does away with the need of a sanctuary in heaven, and of ministry there by our High Priest in the two phases foreshadowed in the typical service. It also repudiates our interpretation of the 2300 days and our belief regarding the event which occurred in 1844.
It is always a delicate matter to refute this teaching on the atonement, for the reason that it may wrongly be understood as depreciating the cross, whereas in reality it greatly exalts that matchless sacrifice. The Scriptures are so clear on the relation of the atonement proper to the sacrifice for sin, as revealed through the type and interpreted in the New Testament, that it may be profitable to review a few outstanding passages.
Speaking of the type, Dr. Adam Clarke in his commentary on Leviticus I :4, makes this simple statement on the atonement: "By the sprinkling of the blood the atonement was made, for the blood was the life of the beast, and it was always supposed that life went to redeem life." This is in effect a paraphrase of Leviticus 17:11, which gives the key to the whole typical system. This scripture says: "The life of the flesh is in the blood" (first clause). Also, "It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" (last clause). Reading this latter part more literally as it runs in the Hebrew, we have: "The blood by its life maketh the atonement." Or, as in the Revised Version: "It is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life." Nowhere is it stated that the act of shedding the blood makes the atonement, but "the blood by its life maketh the atonement." It is life that is ministered in behalf of the sinner.
Where and how did the life in the blood make an atonement? The middle clause in verse 11 gives a clear answer: "I have given it to you . . . upon the altar to make an atonement." The sacrifice was never slain on the altar, but at "the side of the altar northward." Lev. I :1. Therefore no atonement could be made until the priest sprinkled the blood on the altar —always on the brazen altar and at times also on the golden altar and before the veil—and poured the residue at the bottom of the brazen altar.
This scripture clearly distinguishes between the sacrifice and the atonement, and gives in a nutshell the basic procedure in all blood offerings. If this distinction is kept in mind, there need be no confusion regarding what constitutes the atonement proper, though the term is often used loosely to cover both the sacrifice and the ministration. The distinction so clearly drawn here, effectively refutes the teaching that in the antitype atonement was "wholly accomplished on the cross," that is, in the place of slaying, not in the sanctuary where Jesus is declared to, be the "minister." (Heb. 8:2.)
It hardly needs to be said, but should be emphasized in this connection, that there could be no atonement whatsoever without the shedding of lifeblood—and "no remission of sins," as the apostle puts it. Hence the vital importance of the cross can never be overemphasized, though the act of shedding the blood can be overextended to include what it was never intended to cover in itself.
It is equally true that there could be no atonement without the ministering of the shed blood "upon the altar." For "if Christ be not raised [to do His priestly work of ministering the merits of His own blood], your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." In other words, there would be no atonement for your sins.
How the Atonement Was Made
It is of exceeding great interest to trace the making of atonement through the Levitical narrative, albeit we can here touch upon only a few typical passages.
In Leviticus 4, the four classes of daily offerings are outlined. In the case of the priest's sin offering, the atonement is not mentioned, but the ministration of the blood of the bullock was as elaborate and of the same nature as that outlined in other instances in which it is called atonement.
In the case of a sin of the congregation, the only part the ministering priest had in the service was the same ministration of the blood as in the case of the priest's sin offering. The point to be observed is that following the directions regarding this ministration of blood it is stated that by so doing "the priest shall make an atonement for them." Note that it says the priest should make the atonement, not the sinner who slew the sacrifice. Hence the only part the priest took in the service, the ministering of the blood and disposing of the body of the victim, is definitely called atonement.
In the case of a ruler's sin, the ruler killed the victim, and the priest ministered the blood, which latter is likewise called making the atonement.
Also in the case of sin by one of the common people, exactly the same procedure is followed, and the same record made that the priest's part is called the atonement.
Even in the case of trespass offerings, as recorded in Leviticus 5, it is stated three times that the ministration of the blood by the priest constituted the atonement, regardless of the type of animal slain for the offering. It is said that when Aaron and his sons were ordained to the priesthood, with Moses serving as priest, the latter "took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar . . . and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar," in order "to make reconciliation upon it." Lev. 8 :15. (The original of "reconciliation" here is the same as elsewhere translated atonement, and is so rendered in the Revised Version.)
If these procedures in the daily service and in the ordination of the priest may not seem convincing to anyone, we find the same procedure, in the same order, and recorded in still more definite language, regarding the great Day of Atonement. On this occasion, there was the sole difference from the daily service, that after killing his own sin offering, like any other sinner, the high priest, as the representative of the whole congregation, also killed the sin offering for the people before he ministered the blood of atonement in their behalf.
First, Aaron was to "offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself," and then "make an atonement for himself, and for his house," within the tabernacle. (Lev. 16:6, II.) He was to do the same in the case of the sin offering for the people; namely, "bring his [the goat's] blood within the veil" and "make an atonement for the [most] holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins." So did he also for the holy place "in the midst of their uncleanness," as we find by reading verses 15 and 16 of Leviticus 16.
Verse 17 states specifically that the high priest "goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place," and remains there till he has "made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel." Next, he goes out to the altar and makes an atonement for it by taking of the blood of the same bullock and goat that he used inside the tabernacle, and sprinkling it upon the horns of the altar round about seven times, to "hallow it [literally, make it holy, the purpose of all atonement] from the uncleanness of the children of Israel." Verse 19.
Exodus 30:10 records the procedure in making atonement for the golden altar : "Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements : once in the year shall he make atonement upon it."
As if effectively to clinch the whole argument on what constituted the atonement and where it was made, verse 27 declares that the "blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place"—not outside somewhere by the altar where the blood was shed, or upon the altar outside the tabernacle alone. If the atonement had been accomplished in the shedding of the blood, there would have been no need of a priest to minister the blood, and every sinner could have killed his own offering and thereby made his own atonement, in the field or anywhere, which was strictly forbidden. (Lev. 17:2-5.) It is repeatedly made clear everywhere in the Levitical writings, that it was the priest, not the sinner, who made the atonement; that it was the sprinkling, not the shedding, of the blood that constituted the atonement ; and that the atonement must be made upon the altar and within the sanctuary. (Lev. 17:11; 16:27.)
Atonement Made Within the Sanctuary
It is pertinent to remark here that making the atonement "upon the altar," as emphasized in Leviticus 17 :II, was, after all, making it within the sanctuary. No one will deny that the brazen altar and the service upon it were an essential part of the sanctuary and its service. Considering the nature of the service "upon the [brazen] altar," it could not be placed within the tabernacle as most of the other furniture was. But that altar and its service were an inseparable part of what is properly called the "sanctuary," while the word "tabernacle" applies only to the structure which housed the holy and the most holy places.
Carrying this consideration over to the anti-typical service, it is easy to see that the cross, without the gates of Jerusalem, corresponds to the "place where the sin offering was killed," at the "side of the altar northward," and that the ministration of our High Priest is both "upon the altar" (ming the typical figure), and wholly within the sanctuary of which He is now "minister" at the right hand of God. In harmony with the type, this ministration is properly called the atonement—bringing the sinner into at-one-ment with God.
In the New Testament, also, the work of atonement is made equally clear, though the word "reconciliation" is used to express the same thing, and is rendered "atonement" in Romans 5:11, as it might well be in other passages in which it occurs. "We were reconciled to God through the death of His Son." Rom. 5:10, R. V. Here the means for atonement was provided, but there can be no at-one-ment of the sinner with God until he responds to the call, "Be ye reconciled [atoned for] to God," and intercession is made for him by the Son of God, who "ever liveth to make intercession for" him. Heb. 7:25.
In other words, we are reconciled, on God's part, through the death of His Son, but we are atoned for "through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation" through the intercession He is ever living to make. Rom. 5 a 1, R. V. Verily that intercessory atonement for the sinner is now going on in the "true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched" at "the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens." Heb. 8 :2, 1.
With this outstanding harmony, therefore, between the Old Testament and the New, between the type and the antitype, it were well that we used the word "atonement" with better discrimination ; namely, for the work of the typical priest in distinction from the sacrifice, and for the work of the antitypical Priest in distinction from the infinite sacrifice on the cross of Calvary. In so doing, much looseness and confusion could be avoided in onr use of terms.
It is true that by a usage of language familiar to us all, and not infrequent in the writings of the Spirit of prophecy, we may speak of atonement as comprehending all the provision made for our sins, both sacrifice and atonement proper ; but it behooves us in the forthulating and teaching of doctrine to make a clear distinction between what constitutes sacrifice, and what constitutes atonement.
With this proper understanding of what atonement really signifies, the need of the heavenly sanetuary and its ministry, and the place where the work of atonement is being carried on by our great High Priest, are clear beyond all question. It fits in perfectly with our interpretation of the 2300 days—in fact, makes that interpretation possible—and our belief regarding the great event of October 22, 1844, stands fully justified.
