The Blessing Isn't For Everyone.

Continued….

'So far from his “mediatorial work” being completed when he was on the cross, it had not yet commenced.

The mediatorial work is the work of the priest, which he had not entered upon when he died. Paul says he entered into Heaven “by his own blood,” “now to appear in the presence of God for us.” But if his mediatorial work was completed when he was on earth, even before his death, as the above quotation would have it, then he cannot be a mediator now! and all that the Scriptures say of his priesthood on the throne of his Father in Heaven, there making intercession for us, is incomprehensible or erroneous. By thus confounding the sacrifice or death of Christ with the Atonement, the latter is supposed to be a general work, made for all mankind. With this we 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. 16:29; 23:27-29.

Lev 16:29  And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you

Lev 23:27  Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD. 

Lev 23:28  And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God. 

Lev 23:29  For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.

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 grant repentance and forgiveness of sins. Acts 5:30, 31.

Act 5:30  The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 

Act 5:31  Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 

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,”

The Atonement - 134

Acts 3:19.

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 efficacy of that blood in atoning for, or blotting out, sin, is contingent, is 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. 7:25.

Heb 7:25  Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 

But he will save no others… Man is a rebel, an enemy to his Maker. 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; and while the offering makes it possible to pardon consistent with justice, it leaves us guilty, worthy of the condemnation under which we rest. A complete vindication of the righteousness of the law is found in the sacrifice of the Son of God; but, as concerns the sinner, 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,

1Jn 1:2  (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 

defined by Liddell & Scott, a means of appeasing, an expiatory sacrifice. Jesus Christ is the propitiation—the sacrifice to 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. But it cannot too often be pressed upon the mind of the impenitent that probation, and the offer of mercy through the blood of Christ which was shed for all, does not secure the salvation of all. 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

- 135 - J. H. Waggoner

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 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. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9. “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” Prov. 28:13.

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:

THE ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

Prophet On Earth, Priest In Heaven, King Who Returns.

(cont…)

'These few facts are sufficient to guide us in our examination of the atonement; and the reader is requested to examine them with care, and get them all well fixed in the mind. Having made an atonement for himself, the high priest 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

The Atonement - 130 

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 Lev. 16:15-19, 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. 

Lev 16:15  Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat: 

Lev 16:16  And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness. 

Lev 16:17  And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel. 

Lev 16:18  And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. 

Lev 16:19  And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it 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. 28:30.

Exo 28:30  And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually. 

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. That this process is called the cleansing of the sanctuary we learn in the plainest terms from this scripture. We quote as follows:— “Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat. And he shall make an atonement for the holy place [Heb., the sanctuary], because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins; and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness… And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.” Lev. 16:15-19. From this language there can be no appeal. 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

- 131 - J. H. Waggoner

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 Melchisedec, that is 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. 8:1.

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. 7:13, 14; 8:4.

Heb 7:13  For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 

Heb 7:14  For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 

Heb 8:4  For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law

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. That Christ was a “prophet, priest, and king,” many of us have learned from our early childhood; but comparatively few ever learn the true relation these offices sustain to each other.

He was “that prophet” while on earth; and Paul’s testimony given above shows that he filled no other office. Many suppose that his priesthood is connected with that kingdom which is given to him as the Son of David. But this is utterly forbidden by plain Scripture declarations. Aaron had no kingship, and David had no priesthood; and Christ is not a priest after the order of Aaron (Heb. 7:11), so is he not a king on the throne of David (i.e., during his priesthood). It is “after the order of Melchisedec,” who was both king and priest, that Christ is a priest on his Father’s throne.

At different times, he occupies two different thrones (See Rev. 3:21)

Rev 3:21  To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 

; and the throne of his Father in Heaven, which he now occupies as priest, “he shall have delivered up” at his

The Atonement - 132

coming. 1 Cor. 15:23-28.

1Co 15:23  But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 

1Co 15:24  Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 

1Co 15:25  For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 

1Co 15:26  The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 

1Co 15:27  For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 

1Co 15:28  And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 

Then, in subjection to his Father, he will take his own throne, called also the throne of David, on which he will reign forever—without end. Luke 1:32, 33.

Luk 1:32  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 

Luk 1:33  And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 

But then he will no more be a priest, his priesthood being altogether on the throne he now occupies. The reader is requested to examine these points carefully, as a misunderstanding of them has given rise to much confusion in the “theological world.”

Having shown the distinction between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries, Paul proceeds to set forth the relation which the ministrations in each sustain to the other, saying of the priests on earth: “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” Heb. 8:5. As the earthly is the shadow and example, we may compare it with the heavenly, the substance, by which we may gain a clearer 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 here claimed 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. 13:11, 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 slay the offering (see Lev. 1:4, 5);

Lev 1:4  And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. 

Lev 1:5  And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 

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. 9:12, 24.

We might quote much to show the prevalence of the error, that the Atonement was made on the cross, but that is not necessary. The “Manual of the Atonement,” from which we have before quoted, says:—

- 133 - J. H. Waggoner

“When he had completed his mediatorial work, he meekly yielded himself up into the hands of his heavenly Father, saying, ‘Into thy hands I commit my spirit.’”

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:

THE ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

The Sanctuary Setup.

'Thus we see that the idea of substitutionary sacrifice, or vicarious death, was not confined to the Hebrews, but was recognized wherever the efficacy of sacrifices was acknowledged, which must have been revealed immediately after the fall of man.

Passing over many instances of the use of the word, we turn to Lev. 16, to the prescribed order on the day of atonement, which specially typified the work of our High Priest and Saviour.

On the tenth day of the seventh month, the high priest made an atonement for all the people. The Lord fixed it as a statute, “to make an atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins once a year.” Verses 29, 34.

First, he made an atonement for himself and for his house, that he might appear sinless before God when he stood for the people.

But this first act did not typify anything in the work of Christ, for Paul says he was separate from sinners, and therefore need not offer for himself. Heb. 7:26, 27.

Heb 7:26  For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 

Heb 7:27  Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 

As the high priest entered the most holy place on the day of atonement, it will be necessary to take a brief view of the sanctuary to understand this work. The book of Exodus, commencing with chapter 25, contains an order from the Lord to make him a sanctuary, with a full description thereof, together with the formula for anointing the priests and inducting them into their office. The sanctuary was an oblong building, divided into two parts; the first room was called the holy, which was entered by a door or vail on the east side. The second part was called the most holy, which had no outside entrance, but was

- 129 - J. H. Waggoner

entered by a door or vail at the back or west end of the holy, called “the second vail.”

The articles made and placed in the sanctuary were an ark of wood overlaid with gold, and a mercy-seat, which was the cover of the ark. On the mercy-seat were made two cherubim of gold, their wings shadowing the mercy-seat. In the ark were placed the testimony, or tables of stone, containing the ten commandments. See Ex. 25:16-21; 31:18; 1 Kings 8:9.

Exo 25:16  And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee. 

Exo 25:17  And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. 

Exo 25:18  And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. 

Exo 25:19  And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. 

Exo 25:20  And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. 

Exo 25:21  And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. 

Exo 31:18  And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God. 

1Ki 8:9  There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. 

The ark was put into the most holy place of the sanctuary, and was the only article put therein.

In the holy place, or first room, were the table of show-bread, the golden candlestick, and the altar of incense. When the commandment was given to make the sanctuary, the object was stated by the Lord, that he might dwell among them. A holy dwelling-place, or dwelling-place of the Lord, is given as the signification of the word sanctuary. In accordance with this design, the Lord said he would meet with the high priest above the mercy-seat, between the wings of the cherubim, there to commune with him of all things that he would give him in commandment unto the children of Israel. Ex. 25:22. But by other scriptures we learn that he would meet with them in the most holy place only once a year, on the tenth day of the seventh month, which was the day of atonement. He promised also to meet with them at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, or holy place, where there was a continual or daily offering. Ex. 29:42, 43; Heb. 9:6, 7.

Exo 29:42  This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee. 

Exo 29:43  And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory. 

Heb 9:6  Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. 

Heb 9:7  But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people

Let it be borne in mind that although the glory of God was to abide in the sanctuary, it was manifested only in two places as specified: at the door of the holy where the table and candlestick were set, and in the most holy, above the ark, over the wings of the cherubim. Sometimes the glory of God filled the whole sanctuary; but when that was the case, the priests could not go in to minister. See Ex. 40:34, 35; 1 Kings 8:10, 11; 2 Chron. 5:13, 14; 7:1, 2.

Exo 40:34  Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. 

Exo 40:35  And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. 

1Ki 8:10  And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD, 

1Ki 8:11  So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of the LORD. 

2Ch 5:13  It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD; and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of musick, and praised the LORD, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the LORD; 

2Ch 5:14  So that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of God. 

2Ch 7:1  Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the house. 

2Ch 7:2  And the priests could not enter into the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD had filled the LORD'S house. 

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:

THE ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

Sacrifice, Then Atonement.

'CHAPTER VII.

WHAT THE ATONEMENT IS

In Part First [part of the book] we considered the moral in distinction from the natural system, and certain principles of Government which are universally accepted, and arrived at the conclusion that substitutionary sacrifice is the only means whereby a sinner can be relieved from condemnation.

And from this conclusion, if the principles are carefully considered, we cannot see how any one can dissent. But a substituted sacrifice is the basis of all atonement; and hence we conclude that an atonement is consistent with reason.

The principles of Government and the recognition of divine justice, demand an atonement or the entire destruction of a sinful race, confronted as it is with the declaration, “The wages of sin is death.”

In Part Second we have, thus far, examined the principles of the divine Government as revealed in the Bible, in behalf of which the Atonement must be made. For, an atonement is a vindication of justice by an offering to the broken law. And we have examined the nature of the offering made for man’s redemption. That “the Son of God died” there can be no doubt, except with those who prefer their own theories to the plain testimony of the word of God. That in his death he suffered the penalty, the full penalty, of the law, there seems to be no ground to dispute, unless the scripture is directly denied which says. “The wages of sin is death.” That he died for “the world,” “for all,” that he “tasted death for every man,” is expressly declared; and of the sufficiency of the offering there can be no doubt, admitting the declarations of the Scriptures concerning the actual death of that exalted being who is called the Word, who “was in the beginning,” who was in glory “with the Father” before the world was. According to the most commonly received views these points about exhaust the subject, it being taken for granted that the death of Christ and the Atonement are the same thing. But they are not identical. True, there can be no atonement without the death of a sacrifice; but there can be the death of the sacrifice without an atonement.

- 127 - J. H. Waggoner

While we have endeavored to vindicate the truth that the death of Christ was vicarious—a truth which we cannot see how any can deny and yet profess to believe the Scriptures—we have avoided using the common term, “vicarious atonement.” That which is done by substitution is vicarious; and as Christ makes atonement for others, not for himself, it is also called vicarious. But the word is properly used in a stricter sense, as of substitution only; as that Christ does for us just what the law requires of us. The law requires the life of the transgressor, and Christ died for us; therefore his death was truly vicarious. But the Atonement is the work of his priesthood, and is not embraced within the requirement upon the sinner; for it is something entirely beyond the limit of the sinner’s action. A sinner may die for his own sins, and thereby meet the demand of justice; but he is then lost, and we cannot say any atonement is made for him. The action of the priest is not in the sinner’s stead, for it is beyond that which the sinner was required or expected to do; and in this restricted sense it is not vicarious, as was the death of Christ. By this it is seen that there is a clear distinction between the death of Christ and the Atonement, and as long as this distinction is lost sight of, so long will the term “vicarious atonement” convey a wrong impression to the mind. Many diverse views of the Atonement exist; and there are many whose views are vague and undefined; and we believe that both confusion and error arise on this subject from a disregard of the above distinction, more than from all other causes combined. We have seen (pages 127-129) that when a man brought an offering, he was required to lay his hand upon its head; if the people had sinned, the elders of the congregation were required to lay their hands upon the  head of the offering; but in every  case the priest made an atonement. See Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 16,  18; 6:7; 16:30, 32, and others. “When a ruler hath sinned… he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish; and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering… And the priest shall make an atonement for him.” Lev. 4:22-26. Three things in this work we notice in their order:

1. He shall lay his hand upon the head of the offering.

2. He shall kill it.

3. The priest shall make an atonement.

Here it is plainly seen that the killing of the offering and

The Atonement - 128

making the atonement are distinct and separate acts; and we shall find that in every case where a sin offering was brought to the priest, he took the blood to make an atonement, according to the word of the Lord: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” Lev. 17:11.

In regard to the ceremony of laying hands upon the head of a sin offering, Rollin, in his remarks on the Religion of the Egyptians, says: “But one common and general ceremony was observed in all sacrifices, viz., the laying of hands upon the head of the victim, loading it at the same time with imprecations, and praying the gods to divert upon that victim all the calamities which might threaten Egypt.” Thus we see that the idea of substitutionary sacrifice, or vicarious death, was not confined to the Hebrews, but was recognized wherever the efficacy of sacrifices was acknowledged, which must have been revealed immediately after the fall of man.

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:

THE ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

Jesus - God Taking Human Form- Forever Inseparable.

…continued…

'But we are not the only ones who see this difficulty in the Trinitarian views of the atoning sacrifice. Their own expressions

- 121 - J. H. Waggoner

betray a sense of the weakness of their position, and of the necessity of something more than a human offering for the redemption of man.

Dr. Barnes, as quoted, says that “the divine nature in the person of Christ” could not suffer, nor die; yet, in speaking of the nature of the Atonement, he says:—

“If it be a part of the doctrine of the Atonement, and essential to that doctrine, that the Redeemer was divine, that he was ‘God manifest in the flesh,’ that there was in a proper sense an incarnation of Deity, then it is clear that such an incarnation, and the sufferings of such an one on a cross, were events adapted to make an impression on the universe at large, deeper by far than would be done by the sufferings of the guilty themselves.”

“All must feel that it was appropriate that the Eternal Father should command the sun to withdraw his beams, and the earth to tremble, and the rocks to rend—to spread a universal pall over the world—when his Son expired on the cross.”

“He had descended from Heaven, and had taken upon himself the form of a servant. He had subjected himself voluntarily  , shame, and contempt; he had been bound, and scourged, and publicly rejected; he had submitted to a mock trial and to an unjust condemnation; he  had borne his own cross to the place of crucifixion, and had voluntarily given himself up to be put to death in a form that involved the keenest torture that man could inflict.” Pages 255-257.

If it were true that the divine nature—that which “descended from Heaven”—could not suffer and die, such remarks as the above are only calculated to mislead; and it must appear to all that they betray a consciousness, on the part of the writer, that if the sacrifice was only human, as he had elsewhere said, the offering lacked in dignity, and the Atonement in efficacy.

The Manual of Atonement, as quoted, says he could only die as man; that in his divine nature he could neither suffer nor die; and yet uses the following words:—

“It was sin that drew Christ from the skies, and influenced him to lead a life of suffering in this world. It was sin that wounded his

The Atonement - 122

sacred head—that agonized his soul in the garden—that led him to Calvary—that nailed him to the cross, and drew out his heart’s blood as a sin-atoning sacrifice.” Page 138

Who would not suppose from the above that the very Christ that came “from the skies” died on the cross? Why is this language used? Evidently to make an impression of the enormity of the sin, and the value of the sacrifice, which could not be made by the death of a human being. That object might be accomplished without any contradiction, by allowing what the Scriptures plainly teach of the death of the Son of God. Dr. Scott, who says his death was only in his human nature, further says:—

“‘I am he that liveth;’ the ever-living, self-existent God, to whom as mediator it was given to have life in himself, and to be the life of men; and who had also been obedient to death for sinners; but behold he was alive as the first-fruits of the resurrection, to die no more.”– Note on Rev. 1:18.

“This same person, who created and upholds all worlds, as the high priest of his people, purged away the guilt of their sins, by himself, and the sacrifice of his death upon the cross.”– Note on Heb. 1:3.

If it was given to the “self-existent God” to have life in himself, by whom was it given? Here is a plain declaration that “the ever-living, self-existent God” died for sinners, which we cannot believe, and Dr. Scott did not believe, for he contradicted it elsewhere. The self-existent God could not purge away our sin “by himself,” but the Son of God could “by himself” (as Paul says, Heb. 1:3), and the self-existent God could by his Son; for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Dr. Clarke, in his Commentary, says:—

- 123 - J. H. Waggoner

“Considering him (Paul) as writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, then we have from the plain, grammatical meaning of the words which he has used, the fullest demonstration (for the Spirit of God cannot lie) that He who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification, and in whose blood we have redemption, was God over all.”—Clarke on Col. 1.

In view of the remark from the same author, which we before quoted, that the suffering or punishment due to our sins was borne in the human body, the above is a most remarkable statement. In the former quotations he said that the divine nature was not the Son of God; that the Godhead dwelt in a human body, and it was the human body that endured the punishment due to our sins; and in the latter quotation he says that “he who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification, and in whose blood we have redemption, was God over all.”

Can it be possible that he thought that the human nature, in distinction from the divine nature which dwelt therein, is God over all? We very well know that he thought the divine nature which dwelt in the human was God; and if the human nature, which died for us, was also God, then he certainly has presented to us two Gods, namely, a divine God and a human God! And each one is God over all. We think he has fallen into the same inconsistency which was manifested by the Manual of Atonement, by Dr. Scott, and by Dr. Barnes. Each said that divinity or the divine nature could not suffer nor die, and each said that the pre-existing divinity suffered and died. Dr. Scott even said that the self-existent God died as our mediator. We believe that the doctrine of the trinity lies at the foundation of these errors on the part of these able authors. The Bible is not, and should not be made, responsible for such inconsistencies. They are not at all necessary to an understanding  of the Bible or the doctrine of the Atonement. On the contrary, they prevent an understanding of the truth, and cause the teachings of the Scriptures to appear confused and uncertain in the eyes of all who trust in the wisdom of the wise of this world. Dr. John Harris, in his first volume on Theological Science—the Pre-Adamite Earth—has very forcibly stated the truth concerning the pre-existence and manifestation of the Redeemer. He says:—

The Atonement - 124

“For en arch [in the beginning] even then He already hn [was]. The assertion of his pre-existence is included alike in en arch and in hn. For when every created thing had yet to be, He already was. He comprehends every being in himself.” Page 31.

And of the manifestation of this pre-existent one he further says:—

“His disciples subsequently declared that the life had been manifested, and that they had seen it; that that which was from the beginning they had handled and seen, even the Word of Life.” Page 34.

Now, when the disciples also declare that that Word which they saw and handled was put to death on the cross, and rose from the dead, we cannot avoid the conclusion that that which was from the beginning, which was before all things, actually died for man.

Of course we cannot believe what men say about his being co-equal with God in every respect, and that the divine Son of God could not suffer nor die. These are mere human words. But that the Word, or Logos, was the Son of God, that he was before all things, that he was made flesh, that he was seen and handled of men, that he was put to death, that he was raised from the dead—these are the words of inspiration. “What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord.” “The mystery of godliness,” the mystery of the incarnation, is great indeed. It is to be doubted whether a finite mind will ever be able to comprehend it. This does not speak against it as a fact; for we may accept a fact revealed, when we cannot comprehend the nature of the fact. We may believe that a certain star is thousands of millions of miles from the earth, but the human mind can have no just conception of such a distance. We believe in the being of the omnipotent God, but we cannot comprehend his being. We believe that he who was glorified with the Father before the world was, was made flesh, and dwelt among men; in whom, as the Methodist Discipline justly expressed it, were two natures joined together in one person, never to be divided; who truly suffered and died for us.

- 125 - J. H. Waggoner

What a sacrifice for guilty man! What an offering to the immutable law of Jehovah! What a vindication of the mercy and justice of the Father! “Here’s love and grief beyond degree; The Lord of glory dies for men!” “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” See 1 Cor. 2:8; Rom. 11:33.

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:

THE ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

A God Died On the Cross.

'The New Jerusalem is called the Bride, the Lamb’s wife (Rev. 21); Christ of course is the Bridegroom, the husband. But Paul says Jerusalem above is our mother. Gal. 4:26.

Gal 4:26  But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 

If so, why not her husband, the bridegroom, be our father? Surely there is nothing inappropriate in this. But, as the New Jerusalem is not the mother of the unregenerate, these being reckoned the children of the bondwoman, so Christ is not called their father. They are not his children, and he does not give them everlasting life. Therefore the title is applied to him in a subordinate and restricted sense. In its unrestricted and universal sense it applies only to the Supreme One, “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

2Co 11:31  The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. 

Eph 1:3  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ

1Pe 1:3  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

Isa 8:18  Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion

Heb 2:13  And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. 

 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3. [Editor’s note: Also see Isaiah 8:18 and Hebrews 2:13.]

John 12:40, 41, has been supposed to prove the Supreme Deity of Christ, and therefore a trinity.

Joh 12:40  He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 

Joh 12:41  These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

“These things said , when he saw his [Christ’s] glory, and spake of him.” This refers to Isa. 6, which chapter speaks of “the King, the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts;” and it is thence inferred that Christ is that Lord of hosts. But those who quote this in such a manner should know (and some of them do know) that there are two words in Isa. 6 rendered Lord, just as there are in Ps. 110:1, which says: “The LORD said unto my Lord.”

The first is Jehovah; the second Adonai—the Father and Son.

In Isa. 6:3, 5, 12, Jehovah is used; in verses 1, 8, 11, Adonai is used. Now John 12:40 is a quotation from Isa. 6:10, which refers to Adonai, the Son, and not to Jehovah.

Many have been misled by a wrong application of this text. Those who know the fact above stated cannot honestly use it as it has been used in theological controversies. Jer. 23:5, 6 is supposed to afford decisive proof of a trinity, in that the “Branch” which is raised up unto David shall be called Jehovah. Clarke, in his commentary, gives the following rendering of this text, from Dr. Blayney: “And this is the name by which Jehovah shall call him, our righteousness.” He adds:— “Dr. Blayney thus accounts for his translation: Literally, according to the Hebrew idiom,—and this is his name by which Jehovah shall call our righteousness; a phrase exactly the same as, ‘And Jehovah shall call him so,’ which implies that God would make

- 119 - J. H. Waggoner

him such as he called him, that is, our righteousness, or the Author and Means of our salvation and our acceptance. So that by the same metonymy Christ is said to ‘have been made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.’1Cor.1:30. “I doubt not that some persons will be offended with me, for depriving them by this translation of a favorite argument for proving the Divinity of our Saviour from the Old Testament. But I cannot help it. I have done it with no ill design, but purely because I think, and am morally sure, that the text, as it stands, will not properly admit of any other construction. The Septuagint have so translated it before me in an age when there could not possibly be any bias or prejudice either for or against the fore mentioned doctrine—a doctrine which draws its decisive proofs from the New Testament only.” On this Dr. Clarke remarks: “I prefer the translation of Blayney to all others… As to those who put the sense of their creed upon the words, they must be content to stand out of the list of Hebrew critics. I believe Jesus to be Jehovah, but I doubt much whether this text calls him so.”

We must be careful to distinguish between a criticism and an opinion. After clearly defining the doctrine of the text, Dr. Clarke tells us what he believes, which is not the doctrine of the text. And we are constrained to question its being the doctrine of the Scriptures. There must be a distinction between the Father and the Son; and that must be precisely the distinction between Jehovah and his Anointed One, Jesus the Christ. We have recently read an argument by a man of undoubted ability, who endeavors to prove that Jesus is Jehovah, by comparing the words of the prophets with those of the New Testament. Thus, the prophets say that Jehovah is the Saviour of men, and the New Testament says that Jesus is the Saviour; therefore Jesus is Jehovah. That is apparently, but not really, an argument. They who speak thus seem to forget the teachings of the New Testament, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” 2 Cor. 5:19. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting

The Atonement - 120

life.” John 3:16. And again Jesus said: “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.” “He that sent me is with me; the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.” “The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” John 7:16; 8:29; 14:10. God hath indeed spoken unto us in these last days, but it is “by his Son.” Heb. 1:1, 2. It is very true, “that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” 1 John 5:11.

The Son comes in the name of the Father; he represents the Father to the world; he accomplishes the will and purpose of the Father in redemption. As Christ is the Son of God, and the only representative of the Father, it could not be considered strange that he should bear the name and title of his father; “for it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.” Col. 1:19. But the Son is not the Father; and therefore it cannot be that Christ is Jehovah, but was sent of Jehovah to do his will and work, and to make known the counsels of his grace. As before remarked, the great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, is this: they make no distinction between a denial of a trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only the two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a trinity. The declaration, that the divine Son of God could not die, is as far from the teachings of the Bible as darkness is from light. And we would ask the Trinitarian, to which of the two natures are we indebted for redemption? The answer must, of course, be, To that one which died or shed his blood for us; for “we have redemption through his blood.” Then it is evident that if only the human nature died, our Redeemer is only human, and that the divine Son of God took no part in the work of redemption ,for he could neither suffer nor die. Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of Socinianism.

(((My Note:  Socinianism is not believing in the divinity of Christ. It is believing that Christ as God- did not die, could not die but only a human can die. 

If God in flesh did not die for us, then there is no atonement- therefore socinianism is not Biblically based.))))

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:

THE ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER

Emmanuel - God With Us.

'CHAPTER VI.

DOCTRINE OF A TRINITY SUBVERSIVE OF THE ATONEMENT

It will no doubt appear to many to be irreverent to speak thus of the doctrine of a trinity. But we think they must view the subject in a different light if they will calmly and candidly examine the arguments which we shall present.

We know that we write with the deepest feelings of reverence for the Scriptures, and with the highest regard for every Scripture doctrine and Scripture fact. But reverence for the Scriptures does not necessarily embrace reverence for men’s opinions of the Scriptures.

It is not our purpose to present any argument on the doctrine of the trinity, further than it has a bearing on the subject under consideration, namely, on the Atonement. And we are willing, confidently willing to leave the decision of the question with all who will carefully read our remarks, with an effort to divest themselves of prejudice, if they unfortunately possess it.

The inconsistencies of Trinitarians, which must be pointed out to free the Scripture doctrine of the Atonement from reproaches under which it has too long lain, are the necessary outgrowth of their system of theology. No matter how able are the writers to whom we shall refer, they could never free themselves from inconsistencies without correcting their theology.

Many theologians really think that the Atonement, in respect to its dignity and efficacy, rests upon the doctrine of a trinity. But we fail to see any connection between the two. To the contrary, the advocates of that doctrine really fall into the difficulty which they seem anxious to avoid. Their difficulty consists in this: They take the denial of a trinity to be equivalent to a denial of the divinity of Christ. Were that the case, we should cling to the doctrine of a trinity as tenaciously as any can; but it is not the case.

They who have read our remarks on the death of the Son of God know that we firmly believe in the divinity of Christ; but we cannot accept the idea of a trinity, as it is held by Trinitarians, without giving up our claim on the dignity of the sacrifice made for our redemption.

- 115 - J. H. Waggoner

And here is shown how remarkably the widest extremes meet in theology. The highest Trinitarians and lowest Unitarians meet and are perfectly united on the death of Christ—the faith of both amounts to Socinianism. Unitarians believe that Christ was a prophet, an inspired teacher, but merely human; that his death was that of a human body only. Trinitarians hold that the term “Christ” comprehends two distinct and separate natures: one that was merely human; the other, the second person in the trinity, who dwelt in the flesh for a brief period, but could not possibly suffer, or die; that the Christ that died was only the human nature in which the divinity had dwelt.

Both classes have a human offering, and nothing more.

No matter how exalted the pre-existent Son was; no matter how glorious, how powerful, or even eternal; if the manhood only died, the sacrifice was only human.

And so far as the vicarious death of Christ is concerned, this is Socinianism.

Thus the remark is just, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, resting it solely on a human offering as a basis. A few quotations will show the correctness of this assertion.

“As God, he obeyed all the requirements of the law, and made it honorable in the justification of sinners; as man, he bore its curse on the tree, and endured its penalty.” —Manual of Atonement, page25.

“The sufferings of Christ were endured in his human nature. Though possessing a divine nature, yet int hat he could not suffer and die. His sufferings were endured in his human nature.” Id.,  page 88.

“It is no part of the doctrine of the Atonement that the divine nature, in the person of the Saviour, suffered.”—Barnes on Atonement, page 224.

“It was meet that the mediator should be man, that he might be capable of suffering death; for, as God, he could not die.”—Buck’s Theol. Dict., Art. Mediator.

“Trinitarians do not hold to the sufferings or death of divinity.”—Mattison on the Trinity, page 39.

The Atonement - 116

“His mediation between God and man is chiefly in his human nature, in which alone he was capable of suffering and dying.”—Scott on 1 Tim. 2:5.

“I know not any scripture, fairly interpreted, that states the divine nature of our Lord to be begotten of God, or to be the Son of God.”– Clarke on Heb. 1:8.

“Is it to be wondered that the human body in which this fullness of the Godhead dwelt, and in which the punishment due to our sins was borne upon the tree, should be exalted above all human and all created things?”– Id. on Phil. 2:9.

Dr. Clarke says the apostle John doubtless directed his first letter against the heretics then abounding. Of them he says:—

“The Gnostics even denied that Christ suffered; the AEon, or Divine Being that dwelt in the man Christ Jesus, according to them, left him when he was taken by the Jews.” &c.– Note on 1 John 1:8.

So far as that particular heresy of the Gnostics is concerned, it has become wide-spread and almost all-prevailing in the denominations of the present day. Indeed, we cannot see but Dr. Clarke himself was tinctured with it, according to the quotations given above. We trust that we have shown to the full conviction of every one who “trembles at the word” of the Lord, that the Son of God, who was in the beginning, by whom the worlds were made, suffered death for us; the oft-repeated declarations of theological writers that a mere human body died are, by the Scriptures, proved untrue. These writers take the doctrine of a trinity for their basis, and assume that Christ is the second person in the trinity, and could not die.

Again, they assume that death is not a cessation of life; and between the two unscriptural assumptions they involve themselves in numerous difficulties, and load the doctrine of the Atonement with unreasonable contradictions. We would not needlessly place ourselves in opposition to the religious feelings of any class, but in order to clear the doctrine of the Atonement from the consequences

- 117 - J. H. Waggoner

of these assumptions, we are compelled to notice some of the prominent arguments presented in favor of the doctrine of a trinity. In the “Manual of Atonement,” 1 John 5:20 is quoted as containing most conclusive evidence of a trinity and of the Supreme Deity of Christ. It is there claimed that he is called “the true God and eternal life.” The whole verse reads thus: “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” A person must be strongly wedded to a theory who can read this verse and not see the distinction therein contained between the true God and the Son of God. “We are in him that is true.” How? “In his Son Jesus Christ.” The distinction between Christ and the true God is most clearly shown by the Saviour’s own words in John 17:3: “That they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Much stress is laid on Isa. 9:6, as proving a trinity, which we have before quoted, as referring to our High Priest who shed his blood for us. The advocates of that theory will say that it refers to a trinity because Christ is called the everlasting Father. But for this reason, with others, we affirm that it can have no reference to a trinity. Is Christ the Father in the trinity? If so, how is he the Son? or if he is both Father and Son, how can there be a trinity? for a trinity is three persons.

To recognize a trinity, the distinction between the Father and Son must be preserved. Christ is called “the second person in the trinity;” but if this text proves a trinity, or refers to it at all, it proves that he is not the second, but the first. And if he is the first, who is the second? It is very plain that this text has no reference to such a doctrine. In seeking an explanation of this text, we must bear in mind the work of Christ as brought to view in this and parallel passages.

These words refer to the “child born,” the “son given,” who, as we have seen, bears the title of God subordinate to his Father. And if an apostle could call himself the father of those whom he had begotten in the gospel

(1 Cor. 4:15;

1Co 4:15  For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 

1 Tim. 1:2;

1Ti 1:2  Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 

Titus 1:4

Tit 1:4  To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.)

, how appropriately is this title applied to the Prince of Peace, who is, in a peculiar sense,

The Atonement - 118

the everlasting Father of all to whom he gives everlasting life.

(To be continued)

(Excerpt from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:

THE ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE

  (1884)

BY   ELDER J. H. WAGGONER