III. Incarnation and Ministry of Christ (Concluded)

The Approach to God.—A wrong impression can easily prevail in regard to the restrictions laid upon approach to God in the typical sanctuary and its service. It has already been said that the purpose of such limitations as the two veils and other barriers was not to keep men away from God, but to enable them to approach nearer to Him. This was manifest in the very building of the taber­nacle itself. Desiring to dwell among His people for the purpose of blessing and not destroying them, God gave direction for the construction of a tabernacle. This was so planned that the priests might have only a veil between them and the holy Shekinah, and thus come very near to God in their work of mediation for sinners. The high priest once a year might even come so directly into the presence of God as to have only the smoke of incense between them. The Levites, not being representatives of Christ, might not enter the sanctuary at all during the service of minis­tration, but must remain back of the barriers between them and the priests. The common people had a court marked off for them, and the Gentiles had another court still farther removed. The limit of the people's approach was the altar of sacrifice, whither any might come with their offerings when possessed of a spirit of repentance and confession.

In all this arrangement God came as near to the sinner as possible, short of destroying him by the glory of His presence. This was the key to the whole sanctuary service—bring­ing the sinner back to God. Since sin and the sinner could not survive in the open presence of a holy God, there must be a Mediator to stand between—one who could stand in the presence of both God and the sinner. This pro­vision of a medium of approach for the sinner was the outstanding factor in the whole plan of salvation, and was the guiding principle in the building of the tabernacle sanctuary and the conduct of its service. As carried out in the service, it was the greatest object lesson of Old Testament times to the people. It was the earthly counterpart in symbol of what is now going on in heaven.

There can be no doubt that the repentant sin­ner who brought his offering and slew the animal of his sacrifice as an expression of his faith, received atonement through the mediation of the priest, and obtained forgive­ness of his sin. This could not be said to take the place of the mediation of the true High Priest in heaven, for "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (Heb. 10:4), but forgiveness was obtained by faith in the reality to come. This service was, however, in illustration of the true, by type on the earth in the presence of the people, to draw sinners to Christ, and to serve as an example of abounding grace for the sinner.

Since Christ is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," He is also High Priest from the foundation of the world, in the same sense. By faith in the historical ministra­tion of that blood in the true sanctuary, sinners before the cross obtained salvation. There is no difference in the plan of salvation itself before and since the cross. There is only the difference in the direction of faith, in the fact of the sacrifice, and in the method of the min­istry.

The fact of the sacrifice makes it possible to nail to the cross all the "ordinances of divine service" in the typical sanctuary. There is no further need of foreshadowing what has become a reality. Yet the relation of the sinner to the great Sacrifice on the cross has not changed in any essential respect. He no longer has any need of expressing his faith by the slaying of an animal, for the true Lamb has been slain in fact, and is efficacious to meet the need "of the world" of sinners. But in this first step in obtaining salvation lies the only difference in the sinner's relation to the great Sacrifice.

It is just as necessary for him to receive the atonement, the reconciliation, through the ministry of a mediator, as it was in the type. On God's part, reconciliation was fully made available on the cross for every man. But on man's part just as truly as in the type, no sinner received the atonement till the priest made it for him through the ministry of the blood, just so surely no sinner now receives the reconcili­ation till it is ministered to him by the "High Priest of our profession," who is "exalted with His right hand • . . for to give repentance . . . and forgiveness of sins" through His atone­ment, and who ever lives for the very purpose of making intercession for every sinner that will come to Him that he might have life. (Acts 5:31; Heb. 7:25.)

This does not at all mean what the perverter of sanctuary truth declares, that in such a case it would be necessary for Christ to make millions of atonements instead of "once for all." No, not in any sense which the detractor means by atonement—dying on the cross. But it does mean that salvation is an individual matter, and that receiving the atonement in the true sense through the ministry of our "great High Priest" is a definite, individual transaction. "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ," who will plead the sinner's case and bring him into at-one-ment with the Father.

There could be no greater transaction than this, and none could be more individual. Someone has said most truthfully and impres­sively that Zechariah 3 portrays, in the case of Joshua, what Jesus our advocate goes through with every individual sinner. There­fore Jesus does make millions of individual atonements in the true Bible sense of serving as advocate to bring the sinner into oneness with God, but it is most absurd to say that Jesus would have to die millions of times instead of "once for all." The absurdity of it lies in the fact that the term "atonement" is misused to mean only dying on the cross—a use for which there is no Scriptural authority.

In very fact, those who attack Seventh-day Adventist teaching on the sanctuary, base their whole controversy on a misapprehension, a misconstruction, and a misuse of the term "atonement." In every instance of Levitical practice in the typical service, it is either directly stated or clearly implied that atonement is made after the shedding of the blood of the sacrifice. This part of the transaction is not left to the sinner, who does his part by bringing and slaying the sacrifice in confession of his sin, but is performed by the priest, who takes of the shed blood and makes the atone­ment for the sinner. There can be no at-one­ment till both parties to the transaction have done their part. The sinner who brings his offering represents the sinner; the priest rep­resents Christ. It takes the two to make the transaction. There must be two parties to the at-one-ment. Otherwise words mean nothing, and reason has abdicated her throne, as it really does sometimes seem to have done in the case of modern dissenters from the sanctu­ary faith.

Two Steps in the Great Transaction

The "great transaction" is just as clearly set forth in the New Testament record as in the Old. It is plainly stated twice in 2 Corinthians 5 :18, 19: (r) "God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ," and "hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation." There are two steps in the transaction, not one; namely, sacrifice through the incarnation, and ministry in the sanctuary. (2) "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself; . and hath committed unto us the word of recon­ciliation." Again, there are two steps in the transaction, not one; namely, sacrifice and ministry.

Consequently "we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God"—let the transaction be completed in you, let your great High Priest "make an atonement" for you, let Him make reconciliation effective in you.

There is no "completed atonement," no "completed reconciliation," in the transaction of the cross, such as unbelievers in the sanc­tuary faith so stoutly and so constantly affirm. If atonement reconciliation was wholly accom­plished on the cross, where is there any possible place for the "ministry of reconciliation" and the "word of reconciliation" committed to us as ambassadors, spokesmen, for Christ? What fitness would there be in the pleading prayer, "Be ye reconciled to God"? Why does Jesus still stand at the door and knock if reconcili­ation at-one-ment with God was accomplished at the cross ? Why have a "minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle" in heaven today, if reconciliation atonement was completed on the cross by the death of the Son of God ? Why have an advocate with the Father for a case that was settled centuries ago?

Yes, dear reader, on the authority of the infallible word of God, and as the "chief point" emphasized in the book of Hebrews (8:1, 2), "we have a High Priest" in the heavens to "make an atonement" by the ministry of His own blood "in the true tabernacle," to com­plete the great transaction of reconciliation for you and for me as we come to Him in repentance and confession. How wonderful it is to contemplate our advocate with the Father knocking at the door of our hearts, listening eagerly for the response, and gra­ciously ministering the infinite remedy for sin in our own individual case ! Our Intercessor does not leave us to depend alone on the un­speakable and indispensable sacrifice of the cross for the working out of our salvation, but implores us now, and mediated for us now at the mercy seat of His great grace. There He Himself, a living, interceding mediator in this ^,our own day, completes the transaction initi­ated with the Father in our behalf before the world began, and made possible by the infinite price of redemption He paid on the cross.