DR. WALDENSTROM AND NON-VICARIOUS ATONEMENT.

II. – Continued from p. 139.

The first point that he insists on with reference to the meaning of the Old-Testament sacrifices is just that which we have already considered, and without which he could not get on for a moment, – that' it is never said in the Old Testament that atonement, or reconciliation, was effected by the death of the sacrificed animal. No ; atonement was effected by the blood:" that is, for him, as we have seen, by life, not death. To which he adds here that " not by the shedding of the blood was atonement made, but by the sprinkling of the blood." " But what did this sprinkling signify ? It signified cleansing, or purging, from sin, as the apostle says, ' Almost all things are by the law purged with blood.'" For some reason Dr. Waldenstrom does not complete the quotation here, " and without shedding of blood is no remission." I may not assume to know his reason for the omission, but it certainly would seem to need accounting for. The passage thus completed lies, in fact, in the very teeth of his argument ; and it is safe to say that it is a complete refutation of it.

Why without shedding of blood was there no remission ? Probably Dr. Waldenstrom might suggest (for, as he has said nothing, we can only suggest for him) that the blood could not be sprinkled if it were not shed ; but this answer is not as satisfactory as it seems it ought to be. For, in the first place, the apostle should have said, and it cannot be conceived why in that case he did not say, " without sprinkling of blood," instead of " without shedding." We would insist as much as Dr. Waldenstrom on the exact force of Scripture words, and here plainly (for him), the apostle has put the emphasis upon the wrong point, and is in that measure accountable for the doctrine we have been getting from it.

But again. Suppose an Israelite who had sinned under the old economy. Should we say to him, The shedding of blood is not what makes atonement:it is sprinkling of blood ; and, acting upon our suggestion, he was to go to the priest and say, " Here is the fresh blood of a newly killed animal; put it, I pray thee, upon the horns of the altar for me." Would that avail ?

He might add, "And here is the beast itself for the fat to be offered, and for the priest." Still the priest would have to say, "Sir, is this beast your own sin-offering? Did you designate it as your own by laying your hand upon it, and then kill it in the place where they kill the burnt-offering before the Lord ?"

All this is nothing for Dr. Waldenstrom. The shedding of blood is not the point, but the sprinkling of blood. One cannot see why the animal should even die at all:for the type would be much more perfect, according to his view, if it were some of the blood of a living animal than as the blood of a dead one ; it would surely better signify life!

And why need every one that sinned have his own sin-offering? Why must there be this solemn shedding of blood for each one, and the whole of the blood poured out in each case-save what anointed the horns of it-at the bottom of the altar!

The sprinkling, however, says Dr. Waldenstrom, is the important thing. It is this that cleanses from sin, and atonement is just cleansing from sin ! Think of the Israelite again, as instructed in this new theology. He brings his beast according to the manner :it is slain, and the priest takes the blood. To do what with it? To anoint the horns of the altar, and to pour out all the rest of it at the bottom of it? The man looks anxiously. "But, sir, have you left none to sprinkle upon me? That is what atonement means ; it is to be sprinkled upon me, to cleanse me." " I have none left," says the priest; " I have acted strictly according to the ritual. The animal was killed before the Lord ; its blood is poured upon the ground, except what you can see upon the horns of the altar. I have no word to sprinkle any upon you ; but atonement is made nevertheless, and your sin is forgiven!"

Dr. Waldenstrom's doctrine does not consist with the facts. The blood of the trespass-offering is sprinkled upon the leper, as also the blood of the bird killed at the beginning of his cleansing ; the blood of the covenant is sprinkled on the people in Ex. 24:, but it is the blood of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings only ; the ashes of the heifer are sprinkled upon the defiled person in Num. 19:; and to these last two the apostle refers in Heb. 9:; we shall see the significance of this shortly :but the blood of the sin-offering, or of the ordinary trespass-offerings, was never sprinkled upon the person, while it was, nevertheless, again and again declared that atonement was made by it, and that the person was forgiven.

We see, then, that the apostle knew what he was saying when he declared that "without shedding of blood is no remission." He knew all about sprinkling, and insists upon it in the very same chapter; but had he said " without sprinkling of blood is no remission," the whole Jewish ritual would have borne witness against him, as now it does against Dr. Waldenstrom. He has made the exception the rule, and misinterpreted both alike; and Scripture, which is no " nose of wax," and will not speak as we please, but only according to the truth of God which it declares, witnesses decisively against him. The whole Levitical ritual, while it does say that atonement is by blood, unites to show that the blood is the testimony of death, not life, only of a death substitutionally offered to God, and so making atonement as lifted up to God upon the altar's horns. The blood is given upon the altar to atone. Thus is the sinner forgiven ; and " without shedding of blood"-death-"there is no remission."

In what follows, Dr. Waldenstrom repeats what is well known, that the Hebrew word "to make atonement" is literally " to cover," and that is in the sense of annulling,

-if you please, blotting out. But he is wholly wrong in interpreting this of a work done in the sinner :it is a thing wholly distinct. The blood of the sacrifice covers

-atones for-sins, puts them away from before God, because it is the blood of a legal substitute, the type of One precious, perfect Lamb of sacrifice, upon whom was " the chastisement of our peace."

But, asks Dr. Waldenstrom further, " Who is set forth in the first and foremost place as one that atones for sins ? Answer:It is God. But if God is the one who makes atonement for sins, then it cannot mean that He makes atonement for or appeases Himself in regard to sins"! A clever, bold, and absolute deception; though no doubt he is first self-deceived. If I were to ask, seeking answer from Scripture, " Who is set forth in the first and foremost place as the one who atones for sins?" I should have to answer, The priest, assuredly ; and that is not God. So says the Old Testament ; so says the New. " The priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him." God it is who forgives, and forgives on the ground of atonement, and the atonement is thus made to God, and to none but God. " A merciful and faithful High-Priest," says the New Testament, " to make propitiation for the sins of the people" (Heb. 2:17). So the Revised Version ; and it is undoubtedly right. The thought of propitiation cannot be taken away from hilaskomai here,-the very word used by the heathen every where for it. But " propitiation, "-if there be such a thing at all-is Godward. The doctrine of the Old Testament and that of the New is one.

"Go quickly unto the congregation," says Moses to Aaron, " and make atonement for them ; for there is wrath gone out from the Lord." (Num. 16:46.) " Every day shall thou offer the "bullock of the sin-offering for atonement." (Ex. 29:36) " It is the blood that maketh atonement." "When I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you." "He that offereth the blood of the peace-offerings." "Thou shall not offer the blood of any sacrifice with leavened bread."

In all this work of atonement, then, is il "set forth in the first and foremost place'" that it is God who makes the atonement, and therefore that the atonement cannot be offered to God, because God could not offer or atonement to Himself ? No :assuredly il is not who offers to God, and yet the atonement is offered to God, or words are altogether deceptive, and there is no use in discussing this or any other matter.

But what about the passages quoted by Dr. Waldenstrom as Ps. 65:3, for instance, "As for our transgression, Thou wilt purge them away," where, he says, "it is liter-ally, 'Thou will atone for them,' or 'cover them'"? Let us consider this, and we shall find assuredly that there is in it neither the difficulty which he sees for us, nor the doctrine he advances for himself.

Now it must be owned that there is a difference in some respects between the way in which atonement is presented in the Old Testament and our common way of putting it. When, for instance, on the day of atonement, Aaron goes in with the blood to make atonement in the holiest of all, and then coming out to the altar, sprinkles upon it and makes atonement for it,-though we are accustomed, no doubt, to the words, it can hardly be said that we are accustomed really to the manner of speech here. In our way of putting it these would not be separate atonements, but applications of atonement. The literal meaning of the Hebrew word (kaphar, "to cover,") perfectly accords with and accounts for this use, as our word "to atone" does not. In reality, for us, atonement is that satisfaction made to the holy and righteous nature of God which enables Him to manifest His grace ; and that work was not done in heaven-which the holiest typifies-but on earth, upon the cross. So God says of the blood, " I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls." That does not hinder, as we have seen, the making atonement with it elsewhere. This difference, it is plain, there is between the Scripture use and our own ; and it accounts for the expressions which Dr. Waldenstrom brings forward.

When God applies to this purpose or that, to this person or that, the value of the atoning blood, He would, as we see in Old-Testament language, be making atonement thus. With us it would be misleading to speak so. The corresponding expression with us would be that He " purges." And this is no more difficult to understand than that any other word should have different meanings or shades of meaning. Such almost every word has, and to confound them would produce just the confusion which has resulted here in Dr. Waldenstrom's mind. Every translation of the Bible, I suppose, makes the difference here which he would obliterate. And yet even he, if we translated Prov. 16:14, that "a wise man will atone the wrath of a king," would rightly admonish us that kaphar has other meanings. So be it, then, and the difficulty is ended, this special meaning being also fully accounted for in accordance with the general doctrine, as we have seen.

We need not, then, examine at length the passages brought forward to show that atonement is simply cleansing. It is never significant of an internal work. It is by blood shed, poured out; death, not life, offered up to God as on the horns of the altar, or the mercy-seat, turning aside the wrath of God from him on whose behalf it is accepted. All this is the teaching of facts that cannot be denied, and ought not to be misinterpreted.

But we must look more closely at what is said of the day of atonement, though I cannot agree with the statement that the sacrifice on that day was " the sum of all the sacrifices that were offered for sin." The atonement for the holy place, for the tabernacle, and for the altar, Dr. Waldenstrom urges, is not that " God should thereby become gracious toward " these, (who ever thought so ?) but "to cleanse and hallow from the uncleanness of the children of Israel."

He anticipates, however, an objection :-

" Some one objecting may say :' But the holy place could not really have any sins from which it needed to be cleansed. Answer :The cleansing of the tabernacle was a type of the cleansing of the people. Therefore, also, it is said that the holy place, the tabernacle, and the altar should be cleansed 'from' [thus, literally; the versions have it "because of"] the transgressions of the children of Israel." (5:16.)

This is surely arbitrary enough ; for the verse quoted can scarcely be contended for as proving that the tabernacle represents the people of Israel! It should, on the other hand, (if only he had quoted it entire,) have taught him better :"and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation which remaineth amongst them in the midst of their uncleannesses." The tabernacle that is specially marked as remaining amongst them cannot rightly be confounded with the people amongst whom it remains. And it should be plain that no typical significance of the tabernacle is at all in question, but the simple fact of God dwelling thus in connection with sinners.

But we have come to what is indeed utterly opposed to Dr. Waldenstrom's system, and which he seems to have no capacity to see. " The holy place could not really have any sins from which it needed to be cleansed." True, but could not the sins of the people defile the holy place so as to make it no fit dwelling-place for a holy God? Surely, it is plainly asserted here; but then the difficulty for Dr. Waldenstrom results :how could atonement meet such a case as this ?

For him it could not; for atonement with him is the cleansing of people, and this is expressly stated to be for the tabernacle itself. Look at the full specification in the thirty-third verse :"And he shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar ; and he shall make atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation." The mention of all these distinctly in this way precludes the thought of the one being but the type of the other.

But here, then, as there are confessedly no sins belonging to the sanctuary itself, atonement for it is not the cleansing of sins, but of defilement from the sins of the people ; and this is accomplished by the bringing before God the precious blood which vindicates His righteousness so entirely that no patient going on with sinners in grace can raise a question of it.

But for Dr. Waldenstrom no atonement of this kind could be needed. God is always righteous, he would say, in going on thus with men ; just as it is also righteous of Him to show grace when they turn to Him apart from atonement altogether. How, then, can His tabernacle among men be defiled? The author's incompetence to explain such a thing is shown by his having to make the tabernacle only the type of the people themselves. The apostle's interpretation is, " It was necessary, therefore, that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these ;" although the blood could scarcely be the figure of life communicated in the case of "things in the heavens"!

The scape-goat, however, is to make all plain, it seems. There is confessedly a difficult phrase in connection with the scape-goat, that he is to be "set alive before the Lord, to make atonement with him, to send him away for a scape-goat into the wilderness." So the common version ; but the revised gives, "to make atonement for him," and this is allowed to be the regular use of the Hebrew words. This appears to suit Dr Waldenstrom, who claims that " atone for " means here the same thing as at other places,-to wit, make holy, sanctify, or cleanse. " That atonement should be made for the goat meant, therefore," he adds, "that in a typical or symbolical way he should be sanctified [separated or dedicated] for the purpose of carrying away the sins of the people."

But surely this is a strange reading of atonement. First, it means "to cleanse;" but where in Scripture do we hear of a sacrificial animal-and the two goats are one sin-offering (5:5), – needing to be cleansed for such a purpose? This "cleansing," therefore, has to be attenuated into a " dedication " with no thought of cleansing in it! But certainly kaphar never means this. Indeed the only "cleansing" by it is, not inward cleansing, but the removal of guilt-a very different thing. Moreover, this removal was by blood ; but no blood was shed for or sprinkled upon the scape-goat, and it would have been an extraordinary thing indeed in such a case.

But what are we to make, then, of an atonement for the scape-goat ? We must leave the phrase as it stands in the Revised Version, I believe. It is the regular force of the words :" atonement with " is not correct; "atonement upon"-the resort of many translators,-has no clear meaning, and what it might have scarcely seems consistent with the facts.

But what, then, does "to atone for it" mean? The facts will, I doubt not, themselves explain, if we will follow them only with attention.

The two goats are, as already said, but one sin-offering ; and the object of the sin-offering is to atone:the two goats illustrate atonement; they are a double type, like the two birds in the cleansing of the leper. One bird only dies, as one goat only dies :in each case the second one of the two is needed for a purpose for which its death, without a miracle of resurrection, would have incapacitated it; and this is the only reason why there are two at all.

Thus if atonement be by blood, only one furnishes the blood, only one properly atones. The atonement, illustrated by the two, is yet but actually made by the one, who in this sense atones for the other. And thus the words following in this case are explained,-" to make atonement for him, to let him go for a scape-goat into the wilderness." This is why the other must die, in a sense, for him, that he may be sent away alive, as, in fact, he is.

This, which is plain, is a complete answer to Dr. Waldenstrom's real perversion.

The Old-Testament doctrine of sacrifice is clear. It is the shedding of blood by which comes remission, and the blood shed is all poured out at the bottom of the altar, save what is put upon the horns in testimony of death, not life,-a death offered to God, as the blood upon the altar shows, for it is upon the altar, the place of offering, that it atones for the soul. It is not ordinarily sprinkled upon the person at all, but upon the altar; and thus the wrath of God is removed from the sinner that turns to Him. He sees the blood, and passes over. He says as to Noah, that He will not curse ; or as to Abel, gives testimony that he is righteous, testifying of his gifts.

The sacrifice is substitutional. The hands of the offerer mark it out as this. It is henceforth his sin, or sin-offering, for the words are the same. Death is entered into the world through sin, and "the soul that sinneth, it shall die,"-so the victim dies. The sword of judgment is sheathed, for the ransom has been found. The Old-Testament doctrine of sacrifice is the doctrine of vicarious atonement.

But we have still to inquire as to the New Testament:will it reverse or confirm what we have gathered from the Old ?

(To be continued.)