XXXI - 5 (98)
“Watchman,
what of the night?”
"The hour has come, the hour is
striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!" Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)
Eternal Verities - 5
THE ATONEMENT - I
Page
2
Some Assessments - 2
Page
4
Editor's Preface
The article on the Atonement is the
first of two on the final "Eternal Verity" which we have been
discussing in this series of studies. This study deals with the theological
aspects of the Atonement emphasizing in sanctuary context that Jesus was
announced as the Savior of "His people from their sins." The second
study will discuss the historical background of the concept of
"Atonement" in Adventist thinking.
In the March issue of WWN, we noted
that events had occurred in the community of Adventism both within and without
the regular Church which need to be discussed. Since that first article, we
have obtained documented material which focuses on the split-away churches both
in the
The one troublesome aspect of the
picture both in
Page 2
THE ATONEMENT -- Part 1
Reduced to its simplest terms, the
Atonement was stated by the Angel Gabriel in his announcement to Joseph
regarding the name by which the son of Mary was to be called - "Thou shalt
call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins" (Matt.
The atonement is God's initiative.
The Gospel of Matthew indicates that the coming of Jesus was in fulfilment of the prophetic promise to Isaiah, that a
virgin would conceive and bear a son whose name would be called "Emmanuel,
which being interpreted is, God with us" (1:23). God became us so that in
Him by becoming us could be restored the lost oneness caused by sin. This means
that Jesus is the sole source by which the atonement was and is to be
accomplished. He restored in Himself the lost oneness with God, and by His
mediation, He will return "His people" to their lost oneness with
God.
In Hebrews, Jesus is declared to be
a "surety of a better covenant" (
This unique word usage in Hebrews
suggests another covenant and another surety. At
While Moses was on Mount Sinai
receiving from God the Ten Commandments engraved in stone, as well as
instructions for the building of the sanctuary, the congregation of Israel
pressed Aaron to make the golden calf god of the Egyptians, and worship it as
the one who had brought them forth from Egypt (Ex. 32:1-7). Coming down from
the mount and seeing the naked revelry of the people before the golden calf,
Moses sensed the enormity and significance of the rebellion.
It is this understanding of the
covenant with
All of this leads to another
important concept in regard to the atonement. In the Old Testament the word,
"atonement" is used for both the objective achieved in the daily
ritual as well as the special service on the Day of Atonement. There is a dual
atonement. In Leviticus 4, in each instance where the KJV uses the word,
"atonement" (verses 20, 26, 31, 35), the
Hebrew verb, kipher, is used. Likewise, the
same word is found in Leviticus 16 (verses 16, 17, 18, 24, 32, 33). In
Leviticus 16, the infinitive form, kapher, is
also used (verses 17, 20, 30, 33, 34). In Leviticus 23, the noun form in the
plural, kiphurim, is used as well as the infinitive. This data is cited so
as to relate the use of the word to the New Testament as well as to consider
how it is translated in the Septuagint (LXX), the Bible of the
The word, atonement, as found in
Leviticus 4 & 16 (KJV), is translated in the LXX by the Greek word,
exilaskomai or
exilasasqai, and in Leviticus 23 by
exilasomoV, a
noun in the singular for the Hebrew plural. These words do not appear in the
Greek New Testament. However, a similar word is used. Two times the word
ilaskomai (hilaskomai), a verb, is used. In Luke
Page 3
translated, "propitiation." Another
word from the same root is used two times -
ilasthrion (hilasteron). In Romans
You may ask why these words from the
same root are given different translations; why, not always as
"atonement"? The Greek word in the OT for atonement has the
prepositional prefix,
ek (ex
before vowels) which affects its meaning. For
example, the Greek word, ballw means, "I throw," but
ekballw means, "I cast out."
What Is all
of this telling us? Consider the following factors carefully:
1) As noted above, the LXX was the
"Bible" of the
2) Every scripture quoted in the book
of Hebrews was from the LXX, not the Hebrew text.
3) Nowhere in the New Testament are
the words used which are used in the LXX for the "atonement" in
either describing the daily services as outlined in Leviticus 4, or in the
outline of the yearly service as found in Leviticus 16.
This permits but a simple
conclusion. The concept of "atonement" as emphasized in Adventism was
not spelled out in the New Testament. Does this nullify the position of
Adventism? No! This fact has both an upside and downside.
First the upside: This means that in
the book of Hebrews, which quotes solely from the LXX, the use of the words
used for "atonement" in the LXX were purposely avoided, thus telling
the reader, the material presented was not to be understood as speaking of the
antitypical Day of Atonement. That "day" was approaching (Heb.
Now the downside: The New Testament
does not give the basis for the final atonement which is one of the fundamental
pillars of Adventism.
Where does that leave us? To put it
very plainly; It leaves us with a theology based on
the typology of the wilderness sanctuary services and related to the book of
Daniel as it focuses on the closing events of time. This gives significance to
the fact that the book of Daniel was set aside - sealed - for the time of the
end. Does this diminish in any way the centrality of the Sacrifice of the
cross? No, it merely relates the sacrifice of Christ to the dual aspect of the
Atonement, the daily service - forgiveness - and the yearly service -
cleansing.
Even in the New Testament where the
word "atonement" is used once in the KJV (Rom.
Paul in Romans 5:10-11, is
emphasizing who the Reconciler is - "Christ by whom we have received the
atonement" (KJV) - "the reconciliation." He also blends two
concepts - the death and resurrection of Jesus. We are "reconciled to God
by the death of His Son," but having been reconciled, "we shall be
saved by His life" who "is able to save to the uttermost all who come
unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make
intercession for them" (Heb. 7:25). This "saving work" is stated
in the context of Christ as "a surety of a better covenant" and as
having "an unchangeable priesthood." (See Heb. 7:22, 24)
The covenant concept is an essential
concept for us to understand in relationship to the atonement. In the Old
Testament, those who accepted the God of Israel as their God are described as
taking "hold of My covenant" (Isa. 56:4, 6). The promise to them was
that their "sacrifices shall be accepted upon My
altar" (ver. 7). In the New Testament there is a "new"
Observe - "in Christ
Jesus" there is a new
In the Old Testament references
describing the services of the sanctuary, the word, "atonement" is
used to describe
Page 4
the work done solely by the officiating
priest. In Leviticus 4, outlining the sin offerings, the emphasis is that after
the offering of the sacrifice brought by the confessor, "the priest shall make
an atonement for him" (Lev.
Perhaps at this point of study, we
should recapitulate the salient factors revealed in the typical services of
atonement:
1) The Old Testament sanctuary services
prefigured two atonements; one that occurred daily at the Altar in the court,
and one yearly that involved the whole of the sanctuary and court, starting in
the Most Holy place, and concluded at the Altar in the court (Leviticus 4 &
16).
2) The plural form is used to describe
the yearly atonement. Twice in Leviticus 23:27-28, the plural form, kiphurim, is used - "it is a day of
atonements." However, the LXX uses the singular,
exilasomoV, to translate the Hebrew plural,
indicating that in the judgment of the translators, they perceived the Hebrew
use of the plural to indicate the majestic plural. In others words, the yearly day of atonement was primary in importance, the objective to
which the daily atonements focused.
3) Salvation history in the New Testament
was not the time of the Atonement of Atonements; thus in the New Testament, the
words used in the LXX referring to the Day of Atonement, as well as the daily
service, were avoided.
4) The Gospel message was the
gathering of a New Israel into a covenant relationship with God through Jesus
Christ, the Surety and Mediator of such a covenant.
While the daily sacrifices in the
court at the Brazen Altar prefigured the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, yet
Christ was offered without the gate as the Saviour of all who would accept Him.
The inscription placed on the Cross was written in three languages; the
language of the professed people of God, and in the two world languages of the
day, Greek and Latin (John
This later factor - the continual
(daily) atonement - is too often overlooked in the study of the typical sin
offerings. All - the high priest, the whole congregation, the ruler, and the
common people, the four categories covered in Leviticus 4 - were in covenant
relationship with God via the mediator, Moses (Ex. 34:27). When in that
covenant relationship, they became conscious of a separating sin, they came
with the offering prescribed; confessed, and the officiating priest made
atonement for them, and it was forgiven them. Christ, as the Surety of a better
covenant, "ever liveth to make intercession
for" us (Heb.
The gospel message of the New
Testament seeks to bring all to the foot of the cross, to the brazen altar of
the court. The New Testament message is: "Be ye reconciled to God"
(II Cor.
To the believer is given the "earnest
(arrabwna) of the Spirit" (II Cor.
To be concluded
Some Assessments – 2
In the March issue of WWN we wrote
that "as 1997 closed, events were taking place in the Community of
Adventism both within and without the regular Church which need to be carefully
considered by every concerned Adventist." Because of the incompleteness of
our factual data at the time of writing, concerning what was transpiring within
the structure, we noted a specific agitation without the regular Church. We now
return to the events within the Church. In doing the further research required,
we have discovered that basic concepts are involved which will require a more
detailed discussion than can be adequately presented in the space available in
this issue of WWN.
We were made aware of problems
involving the
Page 5
the minister who called me, and from
his information, an officer present from the General Conference level of
administration was also disturbed.
The next information to become
available was the North American Division issue of the Adventist Review (November 1997), with its "Special
Report" by the editor; "When the Family Splits." While the central
emphasis of what the editor wrote concerned the Church pastored
by Richard Fredericks, whom he described as its "charismatic leader,"
Johnsson also informed his readers that another split had occurred six months
previously involving "the large Sunnyside church in
Soon after the Adventist Review had been received, we were sent by a reader in
Both the write-up in the Adventist Review and Conference Update reveal a similar
response on the part of the two conferences where the churches are located. No
overt action was taken against these two churches and their pastors until these
churches decided to go congregational in organization, and withhold from the
conference the tithe received. These were the two bottom line issues, the
heretical doctrinal teachings were of secondary emphasis. It is our judgment that
the doctrinal issues should have been primary. However, with the pluralism
evident in the church itself in regard to truth, administrators who might want
to hold to the line of what was basic Adventist teaching face a difficult
situation. In fact, a statement released by the leadership of the Rocky
Mountain Conference - "Understanding Our Theology," reveals that
whoever formulated it does not truly know what makes Adventism
"unique." This statement, too, needs careful analysis.
Johnsson, in his article, indicated a common
denominator behind one of these break-away churches' objectives. He wrote:
The influence of Willow Creek: Bill Hybels'
church has become a mecca for Adventist pastors and
elders. This congregation, free of any denominational ties, has grown rapidly
to more than 13,000 members. Adventist pastors, concerned with slow growth and
lack of vitality in their congregations, journey to Willow Creek in a search
for answers. And Willow Creek has given them much of value to take and adapt to
their situations. Hybels apparently makes no effort
to win Adventists to his model, but we must raise a question: Have
Adventists seeing the success of
Hybels, an evangelical, has a basic
motivation to his program. He has come under severe criticism from other
evangelicals because of this philosophy. This concept and its impact on
Adventist thinking also needs analysis.
Dr. Johnsson's
article can be critiqued as a prelude for the various analyses which will
follow from time to time. It needs to be kept in mind that while his official
capacity as "Executive Publisher and Editor" is evident, Johnsson is
writing as one emotionally involved in the
He suggests that the split should be
kept in perspective. It involves only a few hundred members against a worldwide
membership "about 10 million. But whether few or many, any loss of members
from the body hurts." The perspective needs to be broadened. Add to this
group at
Johnsson says there is
"hurt" and indicates the hearts of many at the General Conference
complex are heavy. He seems not to sense the reason why for all of this
splintering, and looks at it from merely the viewpoint of the present crisis,
which involves Adventists of a view more liberal than the Church itself. Where
were the "heavy hearts" when concerned Adventists were being roughly
dealt with because they objected to the compromises of the faith by the General
Conference leadership in the complex? Why the appearance of pained agony now
when Adventists on the left go congregational, and no apparent grief was
expressed when conservative Adventists on the right chose to meet and study in
small groups on Sabbath? Was it because the small groups lacked numerical
strength and their tithe was far smaller that the "3 million"
reported by some churches alluded to by Johnsson within the organizational
framework?
In the "Special Report,"
Johnsson quotes the oft repeated cliché - "The church may appear about to
fall, but it does
Page 6
not fall" - from Selected Messages, bk. ii, p.380. He
places it in connection with the Kellogg split of the early 1900s, while the
sentence is actually from a letter written in 1886 to George I. Butler and S.
N. Haskell. It is printed out of context in Selected
Messages and Johnsson places it farther out of context in his report.
There are several observations of
current trends in the religious world which Johnsson has succinctly stated, yet
his conclusions are open to serious question. He pin-pointed
"Theological distinctives" as being
downplayed. This is accurate. He wrote:
Ours is an age with scant interest in theology. Spiritually
- usually a mushy amalgam of feel-goods and scattered thinking - is in;
theology is out. If we let it, the spirit of the age will hammer at the distinctives that make us a people - the sanctuary
teaching, the judgment, the three angels' messages, the Sabbath, the state of
the dead, the Second Coming, Ellen White - until we look, think, and act like
any other church."
This is a strange list of "distinctives" for Johnsson to bring together,
especially the first two. To read his doctoral dissertation at
Johnsson's observations on the "unique
identity" of Seventh-day Adventists "both individually and
corporately" are interesting. After discussing Adventists as individuals,
he makes application to the Church. He writes that "Adventist churches
have a strongly individualistic streak." By this he means that the local
church alone can accept into fellowship and disfellowship members - the
conferences or unions, or general conference cannot. This is why Dr. Desmond
Ford, who denies basic Adventist teaching, is still a member in good and
regular standing, while many who have held to and fought for the truth upon
which the church once stood, have been disfellowshipped. This is quite a track
record for such "a strongly individualistic streak."
In the final paragraphs of this
"Special Report," Johnsson perceives himself as getting
"tough." After citing his perceptions of the turmoil in Adventism
over the Desmond Ford declension, he writes:
I
urge every pastor who may contemplate leading his or her church out of
Adventism into an independent congregation to consider this history. I tremble
at the thought of becoming such a leader. The
I urge every member who may feel inclined to join such a
split-off group to consider this history. This fellowship may seem impossible
to give up. I say: Enjoy it while it lasts, because it may turn to ashes in
your mouth, and sooner than you can imagine.
Tough words? But, I hope tough love. If I hadn't been so close to this
history of the past 17 years, I wouldn't feel so ready to speak bluntly. The
Johnsson is
drawing conclusions and giving counsel from a very limited perspective - the
history of 17 years, which takes one back to 1980. (He wrote the article in 1997) It
was at that time that the Church itself became an offshoot from truth in the
adoption of the Dallas Statement of Beliefs. What about the history from 1955
to 1980 - the compromises with the Evangelicals? Fordism
is merely the "chickens" come home to roost. Dr Desmond Ford merely
carried the compromises of 1955-56 to their ultimate conclusions.
Let's Talk It Over
What is an offshoot? This question is
suggested by Dr. William G. Johnsson, Editor of the Adventist Review, in the article we have critiqued above. He wrote
- "The Adventist Church has no offshoots." We suggest that the Church
is itself an offshoot, that is, if truth can have offshoots. Actually, such is
impossible. Literally by dictionary definition, an offshoot is "a branch
of a main stem." There is no question but that God planted the
The Statement of Beliefs drawn up by
the founding fathers of the Movement in 1872 was published regularly in various
publications of the Church till 1914. No statement appeared again for sixteen
years, until a new statement was placed in the 1931 Yearbook, which has become designated as the 1930 Statement of
Belief. This statement altered Belief #5, modified Belief #2, and introduced
the concept of the Trinity "the central doctrine of the Catholic
Faith" "upon [which] are based all the other teachings of the
Church." (Handbook of Today's
Catholic, p.11) The 1980 Statement voted at
Page 7
ous statement of beliefs, wording it
also according to the
This 1980 Statement of Beliefs gives
no clear cut statement regarding the nature Christ took upon Himself in the
Incarnation. It confirmed a major compromise made with the Evangelicals
concerning the atonement in language borrowed from the book, Questions on Doctrine, and defined
there. Thus to questions proposed by Walter Martin after the adoption of the
new statement as to whether the Church still held to the commitments made to
him and Barnhouse in 1955-1956, the leadership of the Church could reply in the
affirmative. (The Kingdom of the Cults,
p.410)
Actually, the more one studies the
changes in belief made by the Church in 1980, the more one is inclined to
question that the present church is even an offshoot of the original planting,
but has in reality become a new plant, a "new organization" when
defined by doctrinal affirmation. The warning given by the Lord's messenger at
the time of the
One thing it is certain is soon to be realized, - the great
apostasy, which is developing and increasing and waxing stronger, and will
continue to do so until the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout. We are
to hold fast the first principles of our denominated faith, and go forward from
strength to increased faith. (Special
Testimonies, Series B, #7, p.57)
If I read this correctly, it is
saying that "the great apostasy" involves the "first principles
of our denominated faith." "First principles" were altered in
1980 with the adoption of the Dallas Statement of Beliefs. Is this the height
of "the great apostasy" or is there more to come? Do the words of
Jesus concerning the religious leaders of
The Thinking of Others
(From time to time we receive small
concise essays of the thinking of others as they meditate on the Word. While we
may not agree with what is written in its entirety, if it challenges our
thinking, perhaps even our perceptions, we will share it with the readers of
WWN as space permits. The identification of the one writing will be by initial
and Zip Code, as Dr. Rue used in his publication, The Layworker.)
"Thoughts on Begotten Son"
If it is true that we have life at
conception, and I believe it is true, Jesus had life at conception. We did not
have life before conception. Jesus did. He did not give up His life to become a
fetus in the womb of Mary.
Jesus died once. Therefore, there
was only one time in the history of time and eternity that Jesus was dead -
without life. It was at the resurrection that He became the begotten of the
Father. Acts
When God says something will happen, it can be considered as
done, only waiting the time of fulfillment.
Ia 89041