An excerpt from Uriah Smith, Looking Unto Jesus, pp. 275-279. Published on GreatControversy.org on December 5, 2003 (Originally published by International Tract Society, Pacific Press Publishing Company, 1895).¹

The Atonement

The sanctuary teaching locates the atonement, and guards us against the error of confounding the offering with the atonement, and placing it at the commencement of Christ's ministry, instead of at its close

In the long retinue of subjects with which the question of the sanctuary stands so intimately connected, and in the understanding of which it exerts so controlling an influence, the doctrine of the atonement occupies a prominent place.

We have already seen that the cleansing of the sanctuary, the investigative Judgment of the saints, the blotting out, or remission, of sin, and the finishing of the mystery of God, are all one and the same thing. We now make the additional statement that this is also the atonement.

The frequency with which the expression is made that Christ atoned for our sins upon the cross, shows how widely the idea is entertained that the shedding of his blood and the atonement are the same thing. But this leads to two ultra and fundamental errors. Men have been driven by this idea to the extremes of error in opposite directions, and have spent their time in an unnecessary and fruitless warfare.

The Scriptures plainly declare that Christ died for all. Now, with the view that the death of [275/276] Christ is the atonement, the conclusion is easily reached that the sins of all have been atoned for, and hence that no condemnation can ultimately remain to any. This branch of the argument blossoms at once into Universalism.

But the Scriptures just as plainly assure us that all will not be saved; that some do now, and will in the end, rest under condemnation. For these, of course, no atonement is made; and if the atonement and the death of Christ are the same thing, it follows that his death reaches no farther than the atonement, and hence that he did not die for all, but only for a chosen few. On this branch of the argument we find the bitter fruit of ultra Calvinism.²

The subject of the sanctuary relieves us from the false claims of both these errors. The trouble in either case lies in the premise common to both, which is defective; and with a false premise, however sound the reasoning based upon it, it is impossible to reach a correct conclusion. The death of Christ and the atonement are not the same thing. And this relieves the matter of all difficulty. Christ did not make the atonement when he shed his blood upon the cross. Let this fact be fixed forever in the mind.

But does it not say that he bore our sins in his [276/277] own body on the tree? And as he died for all, did he not thus bear the sins of all? He did, indeed; but in what sense? What office was he fulfilling in the shedding of his blood? For light on this, we turn again to the types. The idea and doctrine of the atonement are drawn from the typical system.

To reach the atonement, several steps were necessary: 1. The confession of sin upon the head of the victim. 2. The sacrifice of the offering. 3. The work of the priest. And this work was performed three hundred and sixty-four days in the year before the day of atonement came. The work of atonement was the last ceremony of the year, and completed the round of sanctuary service. The offering and the service of the priest preceded the atonement. The offering was not the atonement, nor was the service of the priest, until the day of atonement arrived, and the work was commenced in the most holy place of the sanctuary.

The parallel between the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary has been sufficiently drawn to make at once the application. The antitypical atonement, which is the real removal of sin, was not made when the offering for this dispensation was provided, nor by the service of the [277/278] priest in the first apartment of the sanctuary, but is accomplished only by the service of the priest in the most holy place, which is the closing work of our Lord's ministration, the cleansing of the sanctuary, and did not commence, as we have seen, till 1844.

In this case, as in the type, the offering and the usual priestly work precede the atonement. But when Christ suffered for us, in what capacity was he acting? Not as our priest, but only as the offering; for he was put to death by wicked hands, even as the victims of old were slain by the sinner. It was as the sacrifice and offering that he bore our sins in his body on the tree. Here the blood was provided with which he was to minister. This was an act preparatory to the priestly work he was to perform; the atonement is the last. Those who make the offering to be the same as the atonement, confound together events that are more than 1800 years apart. The offering was general. Christ died for all the world. The sacrifice was offered to all who would accept of it. But the atonement at the close is specific; it is made only for those who seek the benefits of his redeeming work.

It is not the place here to introduce a dissertation on the subject of the atonement. It is [278/279] mentioned in this connection simply to show that the great sanctuary question locates the atonement, and guards us against the error of confounding the offering with the atonement, and placing it at the commencement of Christ's ministry, instead of at its close. And thus we are provided with a safeguard against the errors of Universalism and Calvinism above noticed.

1. Before M. L. Andreason wrote his widely circulated “Letters to the Churches,” he had also published a series of nine letters called the “Atonement” series. In “Atonement II, A Review and a Protest” (Oct. 15, 1957), Andreason reproduced the five pages from Uriah Smith here reproduced. Interested parties can obtain Andreason's nine “Atonement” Letters by inquiring about the book, The M. L. Andreason File and contacting LMN Publishing International, HC 4 Box 94-C, St. Maries, ID 83861 USA, (208) 245-5388.
2. One of the troubling features of Calvinism is its concept of “limited atonement.” Calvinism limits the atonement to a select few who are pretermined or predestined to be saved apart from any choice of their own on the basis of some imaginary eternal decree by God, even as they hold that another group are predestined to be lost totally apart from any choice they make on their own, because God has arbitarily decreed it. Uriah Smith is pointing out that if the atonement is said to be complete at the cross then we either opt for universalism in which everyone is saved apart from their personal choice, or we take the road to Calvinism, in which the final estate of every individual is arbitrarily assigned on the basis of God's whim; for if the cross equals all the atonement, then again, limiting salvation to a select few apart from their own choice to accept God's grace means that the lost are lost arbitrarily. Then the cross becomes an arbitrary event as well. In either case, the “atonement” so configured is made to say destructive and untrue things about God's character. —LK

Uriah Smith (1832-1903) Was a minister, writer, and editor. He became a Sabbath keeping Adventist in 1852, and joined the Review staff the next year. From that time until his death his name was listed on the masthead, most of the time as editor. He was the first Bible instructor in Battle Creek College, was secretary of the General Conference, and wrote a number of books, the best known of which is Thoughts on Daniel and Revelation.