Numbers 16 and limited atonement

[Hilasmos]

When defending the efficacy of the atonement I have often found myself using Numbers 16 to demonstrate, as an example, the nature of atonement and its unconditional efficacy. Yet, I don't recall ever seeing this passage referenced in relation to limited atonement.

Anyways, just curious if any PBers see a problem with using this text. One of the obvious elements I am drawing from this is that if a priest (Aaron, our type of Christ) makes an atonement for sin, the objects of that atonement are necessarily saved from the wrath (plague) due to that sin. How much more should the atonement of the Son of God, the sinless Christ, save all those for whom He made a propitiation -- when the feeble incense offered by a sinner, serving as a shadow of the Priest to come, could check in an instant the almighty and just wrath of an angry God that is already in the process of pouring out his wrath?

Numbers 16:45-48: “Get away from among this congregation, that I may consume them instantly.” Then they fell on their faces. Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put in it fire from the altar, and lay incense on it; then bring it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone forth from the Lord, the plague has begun!” Then Aaron took it as Moses had spoken, and ran into the midst of the assembly, for behold, the plague had begun among the people. So he put on the incense and made atonement for the people. He took his stand between the dead and the living, so that the plague was checked.