THE SENSE IN WHICH THE CHURCH IS A SIN-OFFERING. THE TWO SIN-OFFERINGS IN LITERAL PASSAGES. THE TWO SIN-OFFERINGS IN SYMBOLIC PASSAGES. 

‍

THE P.B.I. in the process of years became more and more fallen into error. It did in some of its members a great deal of fellowshipping with the 1908-1919 sifters, particularly with A.E. Williamson, one of the three sifting leaders of the sifting of antitypical Korah, of 1908-1911. As a result two parties developed among them—one due to that fellowship endorsing or countenancing the three great sifting errors of the antitypical Korah sifting on the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants and the other continuing to retain the Truth on these three subjects. In 1936 the former party seized control of the P.B.I. by majority vote of its shareholders and forced the other party out. Consequently a division set in, Paul Thompson being the leader of the apostate group and I.F. Hoskins the leader of the other group; but the organization as such is in control of the apostate group. Hence officially the P.B.I. as such on the part of the majority of its apostate group endorses the above-mentioned three great errors and in the minority of this apostate group while not espousing, yet tolerates as matters of indifference these three gross sifting errors. Therefore we charge the P.B.I. with guilt on these three errors. In Vol. VI, Chap. VIII we refuted their view of the Mediator and Covenants, hence need not discuss it here. But we will here rather more briefly discuss the Sin-offerings as against the Church-Sin-offering deniers. We present the argument on that subject as follows: The two Sin-offerings—one that of 

Gershonism. 

462 

Jesus and the other that of the Church—are the only means of reconciliation between God and man, and pledge an opportunity of reconciliation to all nonelect fallen men and angels, and that in the Millennium alone. When we speak of the Church as being with, under and by Jesus a sin-offering, we are not to understand to mean that the Church's sacrifice is meritoriously necessary to reconcile God and man; for all the merit used in the atonement work is that of Jesus exclusively; but He having imputed it on behalf of the Church, and thus she becoming its imputative possessor, her sacrifice is necessary to release this merit of Jesus from the embargo on it before justice by virtue of its being imputed to her, in order that, freed from all claims that embargoed it as long as it secures the Church before Justice while in the sacrificing condition, it—Christ's one merit—might be applied on behalf of the world; for the entire merit (hence it must be free from all embargoes) is necessary to release Adam and the race in him from the sentence in the Millennium. Thus there is no demand of Justice requiring us to sacrifice to satisfy Justice; it is merely a privilege, which, faithfully used, makes us share in the Christ Class' sin-offering sufferings now, and in that Class' blessing work on the basis of these sin-offering sufferings, in the Millennium. Thus the Church shares in the Sin-offering. 

Before we can use this argument to disprove the theory of the 1908-1911 sifters, we must of course prove that the Church shares with Jesus in the privilege of making a sin-offering. We will do this briefly first by literal and then by figurative passages. One of the clearest proofs on this point from the literal passages is given in Rom. 6:1-11, as the passage is purged from mistranslations. The mistranslations are readily recognized as such from one of its occurrences in v. 10: "For in that He died, He died to sin once." Is it true that Jesus died to sin? If He did, He must have been alive to it before dying to it, i.e., He must

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

463 

have been a sinner, which is untrue. The blasphemous errorists that teach on this point that He was born with sinful inclinations, i.e., with original sin, are most surely from Satan on this point. The Scriptures disprove it utterly (Ps. 45:7; Luke 1:35; John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 3:5). The Greek dative case, in which the word translated "to sin" is, may be translated, especially by the prepositions: to, for and by. We believe that for is the proper rendering here; for the Scriptures everywhere teach that He died as a sin-offering, i.e., for sin. With this correction applied to deaths associated with His, we can see daylight in this section. In this section St. Paul gives two reasons why we should not sin: our death with Jesus as a sin-offering in consecration (vs. 2-6, 8-11) and our justification (v. 7). With these preliminary statements we will quote with a few bracketed comments the entire section: "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we that are dead [literally, died, i.e., at our consecration] for the [not, to, for it is the same construction as in v. 10, explained above] [Adamic] sin, live any longer therein? Or know ye not, that as many as were baptized [consecrated] into Jesus Christ [not into water; for Jesus is not water] were baptized into His death [not into water; but into His death; consequently such die the same kind of a death as He died, i.e., a sin-offering death; for God made Him who knew no sin a sin-offering (2 Cor. 5:21; like the Hebrew word chataath, which means both sin and sin-offering, the Greek word hamartia means sin and sin-offering-for the latter meaning see Rom. 8:3; Heb. 9:28) for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him]?" 

"Therefore we are buried with him [therefore are associates with Him in death] by baptism [consecration, 1 Cor. 12:12, 13] into death [not into water, but with Him into death. Hence those associated with 

Gershonism. 

464 

Him in the death baptism must be undergoing the same kind of a death as His—a sin-offering death]; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead [human affections, put to death at His consecration, out of which He as a New Creature arose for 3½ years with a crystallized Divine character. This new creature three days later received a Divine body] by the glory [perfect blending of the Divine qualities—wisdom, justice, love and power whereby God spiritualized Christ's new-creatively character and crowned it with a Divine body] of the Father, even so [just as He did] we also [like Him] should walk in newness of life [the resurrection of heart and mind is primarily here meant, but secondarily in body later, Col. 3:1-4; 2:12]. For if we have been planted [in consecration] together [with Him] in the likeness of His death [a death like His, i.e., a sin-offering death], we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection [first in heart and mind, and secondly in body in the first resurrection]; knowing this, that our old man [humanity, formerly under the curse, but later justified from all things] is crucified [slowly and painfully sacrificed from the time of consecration onward until and unto death] with Him [as partners and associates of Him in crucifixion, consequently, for the same reason as He was crucified, i.e., as a Sin-offering], that [this indicates the purpose] the body of [the, so the Greek] sin [this expression, the body of the sin, may have a twofold meaning, and we believe both are correct: (1) the body of the Sin-offering, i.e., in this sense the purpose being to put to death the humanity of the Christ Body as the second part of the Sin-offering; for the meaning of the word hamartia, here translated sin, as sin-offering, please see above; and (2) the Adamic sin. This sin is a figurative organism—body, having many members, ramifying in all forbidden directions, all animated by the spirit of transgression, and each one performing an individual function, according to its nature and kind. In this, the second 

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

465 

sense, the passage would teach that the sacrifice of the Body of Christ with the Head is intended to annihilate the Adamic sin as a figurative organism, during the Millennium. We believe both senses of the word are intended by the Lord in this passage, as certainly each implies the other] might be destroyed, that [to the end that] henceforth we should not serve sin [certainly if we so hate sin as to give up our all in sacrifice that it may be destroyed in all its ramifications, the result of entering into such a sacrificial course would be that we should no more serve the sin—the Adamic sin in our members is particularly meant]. For he that is dead [literally, the one that died, i.e., at consecration, when we die to self and the world] has been freed [literally, justified, which presupposes that one has already died to sin] from [the, so the Greek, Adamic] sin. [Here St. Paul introduces, and that parenthetically, his second reason why we should not sin that grace may abound—our justification, which presupposes our death, especially to the Adamic sin in us. In the following verses he resumes the argument based on our being a part of the Sin-offering, becoming such at the time of consecration and Spirit-begetting, as the great reason why we should not continue in sin, that grace may abound]." 

"Now if we be dead [literally, died] with Christ [as associates of His from consecration onward we, of course, must die the same kind of a death as His—a sin-offering death], we believe that we shall also live [in the first resurrection] with Him [in the Millennium be associated with Him in dispensing the blessings of the second part of the Sin-offering]; knowing that Christ being raised [literally, after being raised—the aorist mood indicates simple non-continued past action] dieth no more [hence there will not be an individual second opportunity of standing a trial for everlasting life for anyone except Adam, and Eve, also as being directly in Adam in the first trial, and thus directly affected with him by the ransom], death [the

Gershonism. 

466 

article the is here lacking, [hence the Adamic death is evidently not meant, even as Jesus' death was not the Adamic death, but a sin-offering death] hath no more dominion over Him [as it did from Jordan to His resurrection]. For in that He died [literally, as respects which (thing) He died], He died for [not unto, but for, and literally the, i.e., Adamic] sin once; but in that [literally, as respects which (thing) He liveth, He liveth [not unto] for God [as the Executor of the Sin-offering blessings now and in the Millennium]. LIKEWISE [just as in His case, both as respects which thing He died and which thing He lives; hence as a part of the Sin-offering now, in dispensing Jesus' Sin-offering blessings now, and as a part of the Dispenser of Jesus' and the Church's Sin-offering blessings in the Millennium and as Jesus' co-operators in executing all of Jehovah's post-Millennial plans and purposes, Rom. 8:17; Eph. 2:7] reckon ye also [in addition to Jesus] yourselves to be dead [since your consecration, when you died] for [not to; for, for Jesus to die for sin and for us to die to sin would not be for us to die likewise—like Him, i.e., as a Sin-offering] sin [literally, the sin, i.e., the Adamic sin—Adam's sin and all its resultant sin in him and us], but alive for God through Jesus Christ our Lord [literally, in Christ Jesus, i.e., as His Body]." This passage is the most detailed exposition of the Church's share with Jesus in the Sin-offering found in any literal passage in the Bible and is conclusive on the subject. When the vail of mistranslation and imperfect translation is removed, it most marvelously proves that there are two Sin-offerings—the humanity of Jesus and of the Church, or to put it from another viewpoint, one Sin-offering in two parts—the humanity of Jesus and that of the Church. 

But this is only one among many literal passages on the subject. Our comments on it will make unnecessary so extended similar comments on some parallel passages, which we will now quote: "If Christ be in

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

467 

you [the very words of the hidden mystery (Col. 1:26, 27)], the body [humanity of the Christ class] is dead because of sin [is therefore a sin-offering]; but the Spirit [New Creature; 2 Cor. 5:17] is life because of righteousness [which the priests minister now and will minister in the Millennium]" (Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 1:5). "For as the sufferings [which are thus Sin-offering sufferings] of [the, as in the Greek] Christ abound in us" proves the same thing. Having in 1 Cor. 15:1-28 proved that Christ's death and resurrection are a guarantee of the resurrection for the Church and the world, St. Paul in vs. 29-34 proves that the Church's death as a Sin-offering is also a guarantee of the world's resurrection, and thus is a second proof of the resurrection: "Else what shall they [the Christ Body] do which are baptized [undergoing the death and resurrection baptism (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:11, 12; Eph. 4:6), not its picture, water baptism. This is the one Christian baptism of the Bible. Its symbol, i.e., water immersion, is no more another baptism than a person's picture is another person than himself. The Spirit's baptism is a part of this one Christian baptism, a part connected with its resurrection feature. John's baptism is not even the symbol of the one Christian baptism. For it was for Jews only, and that for those who were living more or less openly in conflict with the Law Covenant, and was intended to symbolize their cleansing for sin as necessary for them, if they were to be transferred from Moses to Christ. Hence this baptism preceded the Jewish Christians' receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 9:17; 22:16), while Gentile Christians received the Holy Spirit before symbolic baptism (Acts 10:44-48), which in their case was not John's, but the symbol of the one Christian baptism, John's baptism being invalid for them, and when administered to them was set aside and the symbol of the one baptism was performed in its stead on them and by them (Acts 19:1-7). Undisputedly, Jesus' baptism by John was not John's baptism, for He was sinless, but was the symbol of the one baptism (Eph. 4:5) that He

Gershonism. 

468 

personally made, when from Jordan to the tomb He actually fulfilled all righteousness, and which He symbolized at John's hands (Matt. 3:15). These remarks we make in refutation of certain attempts to make the one baptism of Eph. 4:5 exclusive for some, and different from the baptism into Christ's death and resurrection and its symbol, and the baptism of the Spirit for others. Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Cor. 15:29-34; Mark 10:35-39; 1 Pet. 3:21; Eph. 4:5; Col. 2:11, 12, one and all refer to the one and only baptism of the mystery class] for the dead [Adam and his race], if the dead [Adam and his race] rise not at all?" 

"Why are they then baptized [with the death and resurrection baptism] for the dead [the connection of this and the preceding verse, as well as the following verses, proves that the Little Flock's one baptism, like Jesus' baptism, is causally connected with the world's resurrection; hence the Little Flock must in its humanity be a sin-offering which by Jesus' merit has causal relationship to the world's resurrection. The next two verses prove that the death and resurrection baptism is here meant; for its subjects, of whom Paul was one, undergo hourly danger and daily dying in undergoing their baptism]? And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? I protest by your rejoicing [the rejoicing which Paul had over them in winning them for the Lord, even though it came at the expense of a daily dying in him] which I have in Christ Jesus, our Lord, I die daily. [Then, citing as an example of such sin-offering sufferings his experience with the Ephesian mob, which as wild beasts struggled with him to destroy him for his sacrifice for the brethren, he says:] If after the manner of men [i.e., speaking humanly, figuratively] I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead [Adam and his race] rise not? [i.e., what is the advantage of my suffering as a part of the Sin-offering, if those for whom it is endured will not get the resurrection benefits for which the Sin-offering sufferings are undergone? 

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

469 

The thing for us as consecrated people to do would be to cease from the Sin-offering sufferings; since there will be no hereafter for the sin-offering sufferers, or for those for whom they undergo them. On the other hand, instead of undergoing sufferings useless to ourselves and others, we should in harmony with righteousness make the best of life with the realization that after it is over all will be over]. Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. [Having pointed out how the teaching which denies the resurrection of the dead leads to the repudiation of our sacrificial sufferings as the second Sin-offering in the interests of righteousness, St. Paul warns that the error—the denial of the resurrection of the Church and the world—would lead them to corrupt into evil the good already developed in them by the one baptism]. Be not deceived: Evil communications [sermons, literally,—those against the resurrection] corrupt good manners [ethical conduct. Then St. Paul gives a pertinent exhortation to righteousness, that from the connection we see points out that their error—no-resurrectionism—proved them deficient in the knowledge of God on their sharing in the Sin-offering, which knowledge would have made them immune to the contagion of no-resurrectionism, while the lack of such knowledge put them into a spiritual sleep as to righteousness]. Awake unto righteousness, and sin not [by going back on your consecration, which no-resurrectionism will surely effect]; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame." 

Jesus' statement in Mark 10:35-39 teaches the same doctrine; for the cup ["the cup that I shall drink"] that is here spoken of and that He drank was the shame and disgrace connected with those of His sin-offering sufferings that were undergone on His last day as a supposed blasphemer and rebel excommunicated and outlawed (John 18:11), while the baptism which He was undergoing [not, shall be baptized with, but am being baptized with] at the time He used this language was the death and resurrection baptism while

Gershonism. 

470 

undergoing the sin-offering sufferings from Jordan onward to the open tomb (Luke 12:50). This same cup He says James and John would drink. Hence they shared in the shame and disgrace of the death of supposed blasphemers and rebels excommunicated and outlawed in the sin-offering sufferings. This same baptism Jesus tells them they would undergo. Hence the sin-offering sufferings were theirs from the day of their Spirit-begettal at Pentecost onward. This death and resurrection baptism as being undergone with Jesus—associates with Jesus—is taught in Col. 2:11, 12, and demonstrates the falsity of the theory of No-Church-Sin-offeringism under review. The same sufferings—the sin-offering sufferings—that Jesus inflicted upon Himself unto death, St. Paul in 2 Cor. 4:10 says He and the other faithful were bearing. The connection, vs. 8-11, shows what some of these sufferings were. So does 1 Cor. 4:9-13 show some others of such sufferings. In Gal. 2:20 St. Paul tells us that he was being crucified with Christ; hence sharing in the kind of a death that Jesus underwent, the words, "Christ liveth in me," prove he was undergoing the resurrection part that Jesus underwent. Here St. Paul expresses the sin-offering thought in the form that the mystery concerned his personal participation in it, "Christ liveth in me," "Christ in you," etc. (Col. 1:26, 27). Thus he shows that the mystery class shares in the Sin-offering. Our being co-workers with Christ in the sacrificial state is another expression that implies our share in the Sin-offering (2 Cor. 6:1). Clearly our joint share with Him in the Sin-offering now ("suffering with Him") and in the distribution of its blessings (glorified together with Him" and "reigning with Him") later, are taught in Rom. 8:17-21; 5:17 and in 2 Tim. 2:10-12. Phil. 3:10 speaks of the death and resurrection baptism impliedly, and expressly shows that St. Paul was sharing in its two parts. The preceding vs. from 6 onward show that he was participating in the Christ's suffering with others from the outstart of 

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

471 

his career at Damascus, and had been doing so in living out his high calling. 

In 1 Pet. the same doctrine is taught, the same suffering with Christ for righteousness. 1 Pet. 2:19-24 is to the point. The whole section shows that the faithful suffer for righteousness, and only such sufferings can be sin-offering sufferings. V. 21 shows that the sufferings of Christ which were sin-offering sufferings, are the Divinely given example that we should follow. Hence our sufferings are sin-offering sufferings. V. 24 contains the same mistaken translation ("died to sin," "live unto righteousness,") as we found in Rom. 6:2, 10, 11. The pertinent words should be translated to mean that after dying for sins (which we do at consecration) we should live for righteousness. 1 Pet. 3:14, 17 and 18 treat of the Church's sharing in the sin-offering sufferings. V. 14 treats of the blessedness of suffering for righteousness, which kind of suffering alone is sin-offering suffering. The connection between vs. 17 and 18 proves that the Church, as well as Christ, is a Sin-offering: "For it is better, if the will of God may determine, to suffer doing good than doing evil, because Christ also [as well as ourselves; this shows that the Church's sufferings are the same kind as our Lord's—for sin, as a Sin-offering] suffered once for sin, the just for the unjust." 1 Pet. 4:12-14, 16, 19, is another evidence on the same point. That the mystery class—Head and Body—is treated of in this section is manifest from the expression, "Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of [sharers of, partners in] the sufferings of [the, so the Greek] Christ." The expression of v. 12, "the burning among you, that has happened unto you for a trial," is an allusion to the fire in the censer whereby the priest offered incense which was burned on the golden altar. This again identifies the passage with the mystery class. Hence here those sufferings are meant which are connected with the Sin-offerings as viewed from the standpoint of the antitypical Holy, i.e., God and the Christ class view 

Gershonism. 

472 

such sin-offering sufferings as a sweet-smelling savor, as a thing very appreciable and precious (Ps. 116:15). The expression (v. 14), "ye are reproached in the name [character and office] of Christ" again emphasizes the mystery class as having the same character and office—in suffering for sin in this trial state and in blessing mankind during the Millennium by a release from sin's condemnation, to the end that it may obtain "the liberty of the sons of God." The statement of v. 14 as to the Spirit of glory and of God (wisdom, justice, love and power) resting upon them, is another allusion that implies the Sin-offering. As the anointing of the priesthood qualified it to make the sin-offerings in Aaron, so the anointing of the antitypical Priesthood qualifies it to make the antitypical Sin-offerings in Christ (2 Cor. 1:21, 22). The expression, "to suffer as a Christian" (v. 16) implies the same mystery; for only the anointed class—the Christ class—is really Christian—anointian. The same thought is implied in v. 19 by the expression, "them that suffer according to the will of God," whose will is that the mystery class in its first advent suffer for sin, and in its second advent appear without a Sin-offering unto salvation to whosoever will (Heb. 9:25-28; Rev. 22:17). Our denying ourselves, taking up the cross and following Christ, as indispensable to discipleship, proves that we suffer as He did, i.e., as a Sin-offering (Matt. 16:24). Thus the Pauline and Petrine epistles agree that the Christ class—Head and Body—make the Sin-offerings in order to dispense their blessings afterwards—Jesus so doing with the merit of His Sin-offering now and Jesus and the Church doing it with His merit in the Sin-offering of the Church in the Millennium, the efficacious merit of this second Sin-offering being exclusively Jesus' merit, the Church's share in the Sin-offering being simply a privilege similar to that of the wife of a rich man, who as such shares in her husband's property and work as partner and joint heir. Jesus' merit, without any additions whatever, from any source, is the only 

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

473 

thing that satisfies Divine Justice, both for the Church now, and for the world in the Millennium (1 John 2:2). The effect of these Bible Sin-offering teachings, is of course crushing to the theory of No-Church-Sin-Offeringism. 

Above we have very briefly given the main proofs from literal Scriptures that teach that there are two Sin-offerings, corresponding to the two parts of the mystery class' humanity—the Christ, Head and Body—or one Sin-offering of the Christ as a whole in two parts, dependent on the standpoint from which the subject is viewed. We now proceed to consider how the Lord teaches this same thought of two Sin-offerings in certain figures of the Bible. The theory under review denies the doctrine of two Sin-offerings. The proofs that we will give on the figures will show the same doctrine as we showed from the literal passages, as to the Priesthood and the Mediator of the New Covenant. 

The first of these figures that we will discuss is that of the High Priest. We understand that as the antitype of Aaron there are two High Priests: (1) Jesus alone, the Church's High Priest; and (2) Jesus, the Head, and the Church, the Body, the World's High Priest. As there is no dispute among professed Christians as to Jesus being the Church's High Priest, we will here assume that thought as proven and immediately proceed to prove that the World's High Priest is Jesus, the Head, and the Church, the Body. The strongest proof on this subject is Heb. 7:26, 27; which two verses we understand to be a parenthesis thrown into the midst of a discussion of Aaron and Melchizedek in one of their respective typical capacities—that of typing Jesus as the Church's High Priest. We will begin our discussion of these two verses with an analysis of v. 27, and end it with a discussion of v. 26. To understand clearly this passage we should first of all note the contrast in the first and last parts of the verse. The contrast is suggested by the words "daily" (annually, daily standing for yearly here, as a day stands for a year frequently in Scripture) and

Gershonism. 

474 

"once." The contrast is not between many sacrifices and one sacrifice, as some assume; but the contrast is between the annual sacrificing of a typical bullock and goat (in all about 1600 times did this occur) and the once sacrificing of the antitypical bullock and goat. A second thing that must be kept in mind clearly to see the thought of this passage is, the thing referred to by the expression, "this He did once." What did He do once? Our answer is, that to which the expression, "this He did once," refers. This expression "this He did once," refers to the expression, "to offer up sacrifice first for His own sins, and then for the people's." Accordingly, the High Priest here referred to "offers up sacrifice first for His own sins." Can this High Priest be the Church's High Priest alone, i.e., Jesus? We answer, Certainly not; for that would make Him a sinner, which is contrary to all Scripture (Is. 53:9, 11; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Had He been a sinner, He could not have offered an acceptable sacrifice at all. Whose High Priest then is meant here? We answer, Only the World's High Priest, i.e., Jesus and the Church, as Head and Body. Thus understood, the passage is clear as follows: The World's High Priest, in His Head, first offered the humanity of His Head for the sins of the World's High Priest in His Body; and then the World's High Priest, primarily in His Head, and secondarily in His Body, offered the humanity of His Body for the people's sins. There is no way of interpreting this verse as referring to any other than the World's High Priest without making Jesus a sinner. Interpreted of the World's High Priest, the verse is self-harmonious, harmonious with all other Scriptures, all Scripture doctrines, God's character, the Sin-offerings, the purpose of the Bible and facts. This passage, therefore, proves that the Body of the World's High Priest, under, by and with His Head, Jesus, exercises His ministry during the Gospel Age, which overthrows the P.B.I. error on this point and its claim that the underpriests minister only in the Millennium.

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

475 

But some may object that the interpretation just given to v. 27 makes a too abrupt transition from the thought of v. 26, which they claim undoubtedly refers to Jesus alone. To this objection we give two answers: (1) even a ten times more abrupt transition than they think exists between the two verses could not change the fact that unless v. 27 is interpreted of the World's High Priest it implies that Jesus was a sinner, which would have completely disqualified Him from offering an acceptable sacrifice. Therefore v. 27 will have to be accepted as applicable to the World's High Priest alone, who offers two Sin-offerings, or one Sin-offering in two parts—the humanity of the Church being the second one, or the second part of the one Sin-offering. (2) But v. 26, just as well as v. 27 refers to the World's High Priest, and when this is seen it will be found that there is no abrupt transition from v. 26 to v. 27. Rather, it will then be seen that both verses constitute a parenthesis, as explained above. It is only the vail of mistranslation that makes there seem to be an abrupt transition between these two verses. When this verse is properly translated the relation between the two verses is seen to be perfectly logical and natural, as implied by the conjunction, for, which connects them. The mistranslation is found in the first clause of v. 26, to which we give the following translation as the proper one: "For it was proper for us also [to be] a such like High Priest, holy, etc." The verb prepei (eprepe, used here, being its imperfect tense form) is impersonal, and should have been here so rendered, even as we have given it, "it was proper." If one objects that our translation requires us to insert the infinitive to be, we reply that a similar insertion whenever the infinitive is not used is required in every New Testament use of this verb prepei, if the thought is to be completed. The following are all such occurrences of this verb apart from the text under consideration: Eph. 5:3; 1 Tim. 2:10; Titus 2:1; Heb. 2:10. The last is the only passage in which this verb is used with the infinitive, "to make perfect," supplied 

Gershonism. 

476 

by the Lord. Hence the objection falls to the ground. In the preceding verses and in v. 28 St. Paul is describing Jesus in certain respects, i.e., during the Gospel Age, and in His capacity of acting as the Church's High Priest, antitypical of certain features of the Aaron and Melchizedek types. He pauses in the midst of this description to show in vs. 26 and 27 that the World's High Priest in certain respects is very much like the Church's High Priest. With these remarks we will now quote the verse, with bracketed comments: "For it was proper for us [Head and Body] also [in addition to the Church's High Priest] to be a such like [a very similar kind of a] High Priest, holy [the Head actually so, the Body reckonedly so and actually so to the extent of ability], harmless [the Head actually so, the Body reckonedly so and actually so the extent of ability], undefiled [the Head actually so, the Body reckonedly so and actually so to the extent of ability], separate from sinners [the Head actually so, and the Body reckonedly so and actually so to the extent of ability], made higher than the heavens [the Head actually so and the Body reckonedly so in prospect of being beyond the vail]." 

Thus these two verses constitute the strongest Scriptural proof that the World's High Priest consists of Jesus and the Church—the Head and Body. This is one of the phases of the mystery hidden from the past Ages and generations, now made plain to the saints. But this passage, based on Aaron (who in the sacrifice of the bullock stood personally for himself, as high priest for his sons, and in the sacrifice of the Lord's goat stood in his head for himself and in his body for his sons) as the type of the World's High Priest—Head and Body—proves that the Head and Body are identical with the Priesthood, which destroys the attempted non-identity assumption of these, made by the theory under examination. Furthermore, it demonstrates the share of the Church in the Sin-offering—a thing that the bulk of the P.B.I. denies, repeatedly asserting that Jesus is the sole antitype of 

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

477 

the bullock, the Lord's goat and Azazel's goat. And this denial is counting the blood of the (sacrificial) covenant wherewith they were sanctified an unholy thing, and is an integral part of the system of the 1908-1911 sifters, and with its refutation that system suffers a fatal blow. 

Next, in proof of two Sin-offerings under the figure of the priesthood, we refer to Heb. 13:10-16. In v. 10 two priesthoods, two altars and two tabernacles are implied and the following verses show that two sets of sacrifices are also implied in this verse. V. 11 is an unmistakable allusion to the day of atonement sin-offering sacrifices of Lev. 16, and incidentally to the inaugural sin-offering sacrifices of Lev. 9. On those occasions two and only two beasts—the bullock and the Lord's goat—were treated as described in v. 11: their bodies burned without the camp, and their blood carried into the most holy for sin atonement. Based upon the fact that two and only two beasts were so treated, St. Paul draws two conclusions, applying in v. 12, the first to Jesus, as the antitype of the bullock, and in v. 13, the second to the Church, as the antitype of the Lord's goat. The reason why we say that there is an incidental allusion to Lev. 9 in this section is, on the one hand, because in Lev. 9:7 the bullock is shown to atone for Aaron as the representative of his sons (thus makes atonement for his sons and the Levites in them) and for the people, and the Lord's goat (v. 15) is shown to atone for the people; while in Lev. 16:6, 11 the bullock makes atonement for Aaron's sons, as represented in himself and the tribe of Levi, his house, but not for the people; for the goat alone is there said to make atonement for the people (vs. 9, 15); and, on the other hand, Jesus is set forth in v. 12 in antitype of the bullock as the one seeking to sanctify through His blood the whole people—the Church and the world. In v. 12 the suffering is spoken of on Jesus' part as outside of the city, and in v. 13 on the Church's part as outside the camp. V. 14 identifies the camp and the city in meaning. V. 13 shows that the going forth is to

Gershonism. 

478 

Jesus without the camp, and thus also identifies the camp and the city. The variation of the expression is due to this, that whereas when Israel received the regulations for the day of atonement they were in the wilderness in a camp; but after they entered the land and built their temple they dwelt representatively in the city. Hence the temple and tabernacle correspond; the city, apart from the temple, and the camp correspond; and without the gate and without the camp correspond. Hence the symbolic significance is the same in the three sets of correspondencies just pointed out. It was the sin-offerings whose bodies were burned without the camp, and whose blood was carried into the sanctuary (v. 11). Hence in antitype Jesus and the Church suffer without the gate, without the camp. The city, Jerusalem, here stands for the nominal people of God; and for Jesus to suffer at Jerusalem just without its gates represents the fact that He was cast off as a blasphemer and a rebel, excommunicated and outlawed from among the nominal people of God, and thus died as an outcast from the nation. Luke 13:33 proves this: "It is impossible for a prophet to perish outside [apart from] Jerusalem." The literal Jerusalem cannot here be meant; for many prophets died outside of it, e.g., John, the Baptist, Jesus, Sts. Paul, Peter, John, etc. But none of God's Gospel-Age prophets died apart from the nominal people of God being instrumental in their death; for these persecute or wear out God's prophets unto death. The camp signifies the same thing as the city. It was not the world in the sense of the heathen who especially persecuted Jesus and the Church, but the world or camp in the sense of God's nominal people (John 15:18-25). To undergo such persecution and wearing out by God's nominal people is what is meant by Jesus' suffering without the gate and by our going forth unto Him without the camp, as the clause, "bearing His reproach," proves. His reproach was the shame and disgrace heaped upon the Sin-offering. Hence our going forth to Him without the camp, bearing His

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

479 

reproach, proves that we are His associates in the Sin-offering. Of course such have here no continuing city (religious government); for they are out of harmony with those among the nominal people of God, as Jesus was with the Jewish religious government. The word "therefore" of v. 15 connects it with the thought of vs. 12-14. This verse shows that it is by Jesus that we offer our sacrifice which praises God, because it is the fruit [product] of lips [the Word, "our," has no corresponding Greek word and is a wrong insertion]. The Bible is God's mouth to us and its lips are its two parts, the Old and New Testaments. The word, God's, therefore is the word to insert instead of "our." Our sacrifice of praise is a fruit or a product of the Scriptures, which enable us to make our sacrifice of praise continually by their giving our minds the necessary enlightenment and our hearts the necessary strength thereto. That this understanding is correct is evident from the clause that shows what these lips do: confessing. The Greek construction shows that the lips do the "confessing," teaching, to God's name [honor], by manifesting in their display of God's plan, His glorious wisdom, justice, love and power. Thus to hold up this glorious, praiseworthy character makes our sacrifice one of praise. The main feature of our doing good and distributing in performing sacrifices that are well pleasing to the Lord (v. 16) is truly and in the Lord's Spirit to expound to others the words of God's lips, which gloriously praise Him. This understanding is true. According to our examination of Heb. 13:10-16, it implies, in its own and in the light of Heb. 7:26, 27, that the Head and Body are the World's High Priest, for it teaches the two Sin-offerings. This refutes the denials of Church-Sin-offeringism made by the 1908-1911 sifters, now endorsed by the majority and tolerated by the rest of the P.B.I. 

Heb. 10:19, "We have boldness to enter the Most Holy by the blood [merit] of Jesus," also alludes to the World's High Priest, and that in His Body. As the typical high priest entered the typical most holy twice

Gershonism. 

480 

on the day of atonement, once for "himself" and then for the people; so must the World's High Priest do likewise on the antitypical Day of Atonement, the Gospel and Millennial Ages. The antitypical Most Holy is heaven itself, which Jesus after His resurrection entered, with the blood of the antitypical Bullock, for us—the Body of the World's High Priest (Heb. 9:24). Since again there must be an antitypical entrance into the Most Holy, in Heb. 10:19 we are told that we—the Body of the World's High Priest—after Jesus with the antitypical Bullock's blood entered the antitypical Most Holy, there to appear for us, (as Aaron offered in the typical most holy the first time for his sons and tribe) and by His blood to make atonement for us, by the merit of Christ, we also as the Body with the Head in the second going in are privileged to enter the antitypical Most Holy, a thing that only the antitypical World's High Priest can do on the antitypical Day of Atonement, corresponding to Aaron's unique atonement-day privilege to enter the typical most holy. This, then, shows that we are the Body of the World's High Priest and therefore share in the Sin-offering for the world, which overthrows the 1908-1911 sifters' theory, now endorsed by the majority and tolerated by the rest of the P.B.I. 

Next we will briefly examine Heb. 10:1-10 as a fourth proof of two Sin-offerings, based on the priesthood figure. In vs. 1-3 the Apostle shows the inefficacy of the typical atonement day sacrifices actually to satisfy justice for sin, asserting in v. 4 that the annual bullock and Lord's goat could not actually take away sins. Why? The Justice of God requiring an eye for an eye, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a life for a life, and hence a perfect life for a perfect life, i.e., a corresponding price—an exact equivalent—for the debt, and the bullock and goat not being an exact equivalent to the perfect human body and life and the human right to life and its life-rights which perfect Adam had to forfeit to justice for himself and the race in his loins for sin, they could not satisfy 

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

481 

Justice for Adam and the race in his loins, i.e., fully pay the debt into which Adam, in forfeiting for himself and his race his right to life and its life-rights by sin, involved himself and his race. In vs. 5-10 the Apostle tells how the antitypical Bullock—Jesus' humanity—and the antitypical Goat—the Church's humanity—set aside the typical ones and are offered in their stead. These two sacrifices accomplish what the bulls and goats could not do—"take away sins." V. 5 tells of the Christ's (Head and Body) stepping forth officially among men ("entered the world"), i.e., at Jordan and Pentecost, telling by His actions that God no longer desired the typical sacrifices, which He did desire until the antitypes should set in. Then the Christ sets forth the antitypes of the no longer desired bullock and goat with their accompanying offerings, in the words, "a body [in the largest sense of that word including the Head, Jesus, as well as the other members, the Church] hast Thou prepared Me," i.e., Jesus' humanity and the humanity of the Church. V. 6 shows that the typical bullock and goat with their accompanying burnt offerings gave God no pleasure—did not satisfy His justice for sin; at best they only typically, but not really, satisfied His Justice; hence the statement of v. 5 to the effect that Jehovah did not desire them further, even in their typical use, which He formerly desired—"Thou wouldest not." 

The Christ by His acts says what is stated of Him in v. 7: that He has come to do the Father's will, even as was written of Him. The will of God is, by the Christ's sacrifice, the merit for this lodging in Jesus' sacrifice alone, to save all men from the Adamic sentence and lead them into an exact understanding of the Truth, to the end that they might gain the right to life with its accompanying life-rights, which Jesus' merit alone furnishes, apart from any merit that there may be in the Church's sacrifice (1 Tim. 2:4-6; Rom. 5:18, 19). Vs. 8 and 9 show that the typical set of sacrifices in their inability to be really desirable and satisfactory to Divine Justice are designedly set aside

Gershonism. 

482 

to put in their place the second set of sacrifices, the antitypical set—the humanity of Jesus and the Church. V. 10 clinches the point that the Church shares in the second set of sacrifices: "By the which will [the will to do God's will, which both the Head and Body will—the larger Body] we have been sanctified [not justified; for we get justification by faith, and not by willing to do God's will. Willing to do God's will is consecration, and it is by the act of consecrating that we begin to be sanctified ("have been sanctified"), even as our sanctification progresses as the carrying out of our consecration progresses, and even as it is completed as our consecration is completely carried out] through the offering up of the Body [the Church which is His Body] of Jesus Christ once for all [as the Head is offered up but once, so the Body also is offered up but once.]" This passage—Heb. 10:1-10—nicely takes its place beside Heb. 7:26, 27; 10:19; and 13:10-16, as a testimony to the World's High Priest as distinct from the Church's High Priest. This destroys the theory that we are refuting, now accepted by the majority and tolerated by the rest of the P.B.I. 

St. Peter gives us the Priest Body figure in 1 Pet. 2:5, 9. With the light of Heb. 7:26, 27; 13:10-16 and 10:1-10, 19, shining on 1 Pet. 2:5, 9, we see that he uses the priest figure, which from his literal statements already explained proves that he held the thought of the World's High Priest as being the Head and Body, even as in the immediate connection he shows that Jesus, the chief cornerstone, and the Church, the other stones, are the living stones of God's temple, a figure that St. Paul elaborates with more detail in Eph. 2:19-22, applying it to those whom he calls the Head and Body (Eph. 1:22, 23). "Ye are a holy Priesthood [being the Body of the World's High Priest] to offer up sacrifices acceptable unto God by Jesus Christ" (Heb. 13:16, 17). "Ye are a royal [Melchizedek] Priesthood" (Heb. 7:26, 27). St. John in Rev. 1:5; 5:10; 20:4-6 gives the testimony

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

483 

to the effect that the Church consists of individual Priests, first sacrificing, later blessing—the holy and royal Priesthood of St. Peter, though considered from an individual standpoint, whereas Hebrews and St. Peter view these Priests as members of the Body. Both viewpoints are true, but bring various phases of the subject to our attention. 

Do we find the Priesthood in other epistles? We answer, Yes. It is certainly implied in the temple figure of Eph. 2:20-22, as St. Peter directly connects the temple and priesthood figure in 1 Pet. 2:4-8. It is directly alluded to in Eph. 5:2, where Christ is said to be a sweet smelling savor of us. This is a reference to the incense that He, the Head, offered in His sacrifice for us, the Body. Furthermore, Phil. 4:18 shows that the Body offers incense, which proves that they are of the Priesthood. Thus Eph. 5:2 and Phil. 4:18 prove their priesthood in Head and Body. In 2 Cor. 2:14-16 St. Paul says of the elect, in their capacity of serving the Truth amid trouble, that they are a sweet savor of Christ to God. The priest, offering incense at the golden altar and causing the perfume to ascend to God, types the Christ serving the Truth amid fiery trials and manifesting to God amid such service and trial the glorious graces of the Spirit, especially faith, hope, self-control, patience, piety, brotherly love and charity. These constitute the sweet savor of Christ that, first, the Head in connection with His sacrifice offered, and that, second, the Head and Body in connection with the sacrifice of the Body offer unto God. Yea, the Father delights in this as something sweet and precious to Him. The same thing—the incense connected with the second sacrifice—is referred to in Rev. 8:3-5. The Angel here is the Christ, Head and Body. That this is the incense connected with the sacrifice of the antitypical Goat is manifest from two things: (1) The sacrifice of the Head had long before been completed; and (2) the incense was offered for the prayers of all saints, i.e., our graces of the Spirit exercised amid fiery trials are so many

Gershonism. 

484 

prayers (as they give power to our prayers) appealing to God for the supply of our and others' needs. The thought here is similar to that of the Spirit—our holy dispositions, consisting largely of these graces—making intercession for saints (Rom. 8:26) amid many troubles—fiery trials. Thus the incense allusions in the Bible prove the Church to be a Sin-offering. 

Another line of figures proves the same thought—the two symbolic institutions of the Gospel Age: (1) Water Baptism, as a symbol of the death and resurrection baptism, the one real baptism, and (2) the Lord's Supper. In immersion the burial of the body in the water represents the death part of the real baptism, and the raising of the body out of the water represents the resurrection part of the real baptism. Jesus' language to John to the effect that going under the water and coming out of the water would be a fulfilment of all righteousness, proves that the water baptism was only a symbol; for it is only by the real baptism that He actually fulfilled all righteousness: His death satisfying the righteous demand of the Law for mankind's death, and His rising unto perfection of the Divine character through His 3½ years of perfect obedience to the law of duty and disinterested love, satisfying its demands as to His keeping its every command and suggestion. 1 Cor. 10:16, 17 proves that the bread also represents the humanity of the Church and the cup the death of the Church with our Lord. And this is just what Luke 22:20, when rightly translated, teaches (see Chap. VII of Vol. VI, where Luke 22:20 is detailedly explained). Thus the symbolic institutions of the Gospel Age teach the Church's participation in the Sin-offering. This has devastating effects on the theory under review. 

Just one more figure that involves the Sin-offering idea—that of Jesus as the Second or Last Adam, and as such the Second or Last Father of the race, and the Church as the Second Eve, and as such the Second or Last Mother of the race (Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:45, 47; Eph. 5:31, 32; 2 Cor. 11:2, 3). Had Adam 

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

485 

not sinned he would have transmitted to his children the right to life and its accompanying life-rights, which where his in his sinless state. And had he and Eve not sinned she would have received this right to life with its pertinent life-rights and connected them with embryos, which she would have nourished until they were ready for birth, and thus their children would have been born with the right to life and its accompanying life-rights. Jesus, taking Adam's place, did not forfeit, but sacrificed, in loyalty to God, His human right to life and its pertinent life-rights, and thus in His resurrection acquired the right to be the last or Second Adam, the offerer of the right to life and its life-rights to the race on condition of obedience. Be it noted that these rights were those of the human Jesus. The merit that will give life is the right to life and its life-rights and is Jesus' alone—only a father gives life, a mother simply receives and nourishes it unto birth. It will be noted that we have repeatedly set forth the thought that it is Jesus' merit alone that counts in the Sin-offering imputation now and in the Sin-offering application later—in the Millennium. The Church's Sin-offering, whatever merit it may have, does not count in the merit of the Sin-offering before God. This figure of the father and mother—the Second Adam and the Second Eve—shows why this is so. Our Lord alone will give the obedient of the world life. He is the Life-giver, Savior. The Church does not give the world life. But this She will do as the Second Eve—She will receive this life from the Second Adam and will nourish into fitness for everlasting life all who obey, and thus will become the mother of all the living, as Jesus, the Second Adam, will become the Father of all the living, having given them His human right to life and its life-rights. These facts imply the two Sin-offerings, the merit of which is in our Lord alone. Here we have the Bridegroom and the Bride figure, in giving and ministering the right to life and its life-rights. 

But while incidental to the discussion of the Sin-offerings, 

Gershonism. 

486 

whose Divine philosophy it is not necessary here further to explain, we have brought out various points refutative of the view of the 1908-1911 sifters as accepted or tolerated by the P.B.I. 

In the Millennium the Priesthood work of blessing will be done; and none of it will be done in the Age following. Therefore there will be no sacrificial merit left over to use after the Millennium is ended; and as Divine Justice will not permit reconciliation except on the basis of an atoning—a reconciling—sacrifice (Heb. 2:17; 2 Cor. 5:18-21 [made Him sin, should be rendered, made Him a Sin-offering]; Rom. 5:6-11), there will be no atoning Priest with an atoning merit to minister reconciliation after the Millennium; for the correlative of the priest's sacrifice is reconciliation—atonement—at-one-ment. Where there is sin there must be a priestly sacrifice for sin, to reconcile God to the sinner (Heb. 9:22; 2:17; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 5:6-11), and a priestly work for the sinner to reconcile him to God, reconciliation requiring that both sides be satisfied with one another. But the Sin-offering applying only during the Priest's ministry, and His ministry ending with the Millennium, there will be no priestly work (reconciliation of both sides at variance with one another is the very nature of the priest's work), no reconciliation, after the Millennium. During the Millennium all—the non-elect dead and the then living—will be given the one and only opportunity of gaining everlasting life from Christ's right to life and its pertinent life-rights, offered to all on condition of obedience. Those who rightly use this opportunity will be granted life by the Second Adam and will be nourished unto its complete obtaining by the Second Eve; and those who make shipwreck of that opportunity will be eternally blotted out of existence, even as those who, given now the opportunity of the elective salvation, make utter shipwreck of it, perish forever. Having exhausted their share in Christ's merit, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10:26-31). Just so, those who do the same thing with their Millennial

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

487 

opportunity exhaust their share in Christ's merit, and there remaineth for them no more a sacrifice for sin; for Christ and the Church will die no more, and thus there will be no more a Sin-offering available; after the High Priest for the world ceases to function which will be at the end of the Millennium. Hence there is to be no reconciliation in a post-Millennial Age. 

It is the Mediator, Christ, the Head, and the Church, the Body, who makes the two Sin-offerings. The two Sin-offerings are thus shown in connection with the Mediator picture. This is especially taught in Heb. 9:13-23. The Mediator of the New Covenant is but one of the phases of the mystery. This Mediator is not a single individual, Jesus, as many so gratuitously assume, but a company—Jesus, the Head, and as such the dominating part of the Mediator, and the Church, the Body. Many Scriptures give us this thought, more particularly Heb. 9:13-23. Its Diaglott rendering is much better than that of the A. V., for which reason we will base our comments largely on it. In v. 13 we meet the expression, "bulls and goats," corresponding to the bullock and goat of Israel's atonement day service, and typing severally the same things—the bulls, the humanity of Jesus, the goats, that of the Church, laid down in sacrifice, as we have seen from Heb. 7:26, 27; 13:10-16; 10:1-10, 19, etc. The reason why a number of bulls and goats were used at the sealing of the Law Covenant was that all the people had to be sprinkled, and the blood of one bull and goat would not have sufficed to sprinkle about 2,000,000 people (v. 19). Had the blood of one bull and one goat been enough for the purpose at hand, only one of each would have been used. In v. 14 the antitype of Moses, who through the young men, the firstborns (Ex. 24:5-8), slew the bulls and goats, is shown to be the Christ, the slayer of the better sacrifices (plural, v. 23). The blood of the [emphatic] Christ does the antitypical cleansing. He is actually

Gershonism. 

488 

spotless in the Head and reckonedly so in the Body; and by the Holy Spirit of sonship made the offering at Jordan in the Head and at Pentecost in the Body members, who represented the whole Body throughout the Age in that one act of offering. The blood of the Christ's Head cleanses our consciences from the condemnation of sin; and the blood of the Christ Body (since we, like our Lord, are perfected by suffering, Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 5:10) cleanses our consciences from the power of sin so that we can be meet for God's service. In v. 15 St. Paul points out what the death [blood] of the Christ, who is Head and Body, makes Him the Mediator of the New Covenant. This demonstrates that the Mediator is a multitudinous one, consisting of the mystery class, with Jesus the dominant, and therefore the representative member, of it; for which reason He, as the representative of the whole Mediator (the dominant part thus standing for the whole), is sometimes spoken of as the Mediator of the Covenant (Heb. 12:24; 1 Tim. 2:5). This Mediator—the Head and Body—is such, that His death (the merit being that of Jesus alone) canceling the sins committed under the first covenant, i.e., those of the Jews, these Jews, having had the unchangeable call to the earthly favor (Rom. 11:29), might receive the promise given them—the land of Canaan as an eternal (not simply age-lasting) inheritance. 

St. Paul gives some general remarks in vs. 15 and 16 on validating God's mediated covenants, on which we now comment: We have above given part of our proof that Jesus and the Church, as the Mediator of the New Covenant, during the entire Gospel Age, have been working on its seal. Jesus actually provides it by the sacrifice unto death of His right to life and its attendant life-rights, which, embargoed by imputation on behalf of the Church to fit her for sacrificing acceptably to God (1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 13:15, 16), cannot be freed from this embargo to seal the New Covenant until the Church has completed its sacrifice, made acceptable by Christ's embargoed merit. Hence the 

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

489 

New Covenant cannot be in operation during the Gospel Age, since the sacrifices that constitute its seal are not yet complete. This is St. Paul's argument in Heb. 9:16, 17, which is well translated in the Diaglott as follows: "For where a covenant exists, the death of that which ratified it is necessary to be produced; because a covenant is firm over dead victims [plural, victims, not singular, victim], since it is never valid [and thus capable of proper functioning] when that which ratifies it is alive." In this passage the Apostle is laying down the general principle that prevails for the ratification and the consequent valid operation of blood-sealed covenants in God's plan. What precedes the ratification of a blood covenant is the death of the ratifier. Before the ratifier's death a blood-sealed covenant, the Apostle argues, is never valid, and becomes valid only after the ratifier's death. We have already given in part our proof that the ratifier—Mediator—of the New Covenant is the Christ, Head and Body. Therefore as long as any member of the Christ is alive the New Covenant cannot operate—for the Ratifier is thus not entirely dead. Hence, the Christ class not yet being entirely dead, the New Covenant does not yet operate. Notice that this passage speaks of blood-sealed covenants only. It does not describe a word-sealed covenant, like the one the Lord made with Noah, never again to destroy society by a flood (Gen. 9:8-17, Is. 54:9), nor a word-and-oath-sealed covenant, like the Sarah Covenant (Gen. 22:16-18; Heb. 6:16-20); but it speaks of God's blood-sealed covenants and says that they are firm, validly operative, over dead victims (plural, not a dead victim, singular). Hence in God's order blood-sealed covenants are ratified by a plurality of sacrifices. There are only two blood-sealed covenants between God and human beings: the Old Covenant between God and Israel, mediated by Moses through the blood of bulls and goats—a plurality of sacrifices, which represented Moses himself as dead in a sense, even as

Gershonism. 

490 

the atonement day bullock and goat stood for Aaron and represented him as dead in a sense—and the New Covenant, ratified by the death of the Christ, Head and Body, its Mediator. Since God's blood-sealed covenants are ratified—made valid, firm—over dead victims, the new Covenant must be ratified—made valid, firm—over dead victims. 

These victims are Jesus as a human being and the Church as human beings. The Apostle, vs. 18-22, proceeds to prove that the Old Covenant was ratified, and all its adjuncts were made valid for their purpose by the blood of a plurality of sacrifices—bulls and goats, and then in v. 23 he proves that the things in the kingdom of heaven here called heaven—its covenant, its justice, its people, its tabernacle, its vessels, are all made validly operative by the death of better sacrifices—plural, since the humanity of the Head and the humanity of the Body are these better sacrifices—for covenant purposes. Therefore Heb. 9:13-23 over-whelmingly proves that the New Covenant has not yet begun to operate; because its entire Mediator in His humanity is not yet dead. 

The 1908-1911 sifters are mistaken when they teach that the New Covenant was ratified at Cavalry. Its surety was there completed (Heb. 7:22), for Jesus' death guarantees the New Covenant as coming; but it awaits the death of its entire Ratifier before it can be sealed, since it is sealed by the death of its Ratifier (Heb. 9:16, 17). The fact that Jesus is in Heb. 7:22 called the surety of the better than the Old Covenant—the New Covenant—proves that it does not yet operate; for surety is furnished and made to prevail until some future thing sets in, which is guaranteed by the surety as coming by and by. Therefore Heb. 7:22 proves that at the time of the writing of the Epistle to the Hebrews, written 64 A. D., several years after St. Paul's release from his first Roman imprisonment, the New Covenant was not yet in existence, but was at that time to be a future thing; 

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

491 

for incontrovertibly surety is given not for a past or present thing, but for a future thing. Hence the New Covenant did not begin to operate at Pentecost. On the contrary, the Body of the ratifying Mediator of the New Covenant began at Pentecost to be offered up, and this Body's offering up has ever since been continuing, having now progressed so far as to reach the feet of the Christ (Is. 52:7)—the last members of the Christ class, whose humanity is now on the altar being offered up spotless to God under our Head. 

St. Paul proceeds to explain, type and antitype, the sealing of the blood-mediated covenants, of which there are two and only two in God's plan. The sprinkling of the book of the Law by the blood of bulls and goats (v. 19) types the satisfaction of Divine Justice by the death of the antitypical Bullock and Goat. That book is a copy, type (v. 23), of the thing in the Kingdom of Heaven which is Divine Justice. That sprinkling will be done instantly and will instantly seal the covenant Godward. The sprinkling of the people (v. 19) is a copy of the sealing of the New Covenant to the people in the earthly phase of the Kingdom of Heaven, and it will take 1,000 years to complete, i.e., it will take the 1,000 years of the Millennium to give the people—Israel primarily and the Gentiles who join Israel under the New Covenant, a privilege that will be open to all the non-elect dead and living then—the right to life and its life-rights, Jesus' and the Church's legacy to Israel and the Gentiles under the New Covenant. The tabernacle in its court feature was sprinkled, typing that the Ancient and Youthful Worthies would in the kingdom be cleansed by the same Mediator's blood in the sealed New Covenant. The cleansing of the vessels types cleansing any doctrinal, corrective, refutative, and ethical teaching that may by the Ancient and Youthful Worthies be in any way contaminated by error during the kingdom. Note, please, how the Apostle, after speaking of the cleansing of the copies, the types, i.e., the book, people, tabernacle and vessels, tells us that

Gershonism. 

492 

their antitypes—God's Justice, Millennial Israel and the Gentiles joining themselves to Israel, the Ancient and Youthful Worthies and their teachings—will be cleansed by better sacrifices [plural] than the bulls and goats. Jesus' personal sacrifice was but one, and the Church's sacrifice is but one; but together they are two, and therefore their separate sacrifices are designated by the plural term, sacrifices. Therefore, Heb. 9:13-23 proves that (1) the Mediator of the New Covenant is a multitudinous one—Jesus, the Head, and the Church, His Body, and (2) there are two sacrifices, not one only, that seal the New Covenant. This fact destroys the theory under review, because the Covenant is thus shown in its Mediator to involve the Body as distinct from the Bride figure—a thing that the theory under review accepts. 

Deut. 18:15-18 shows the Prophet like unto Moses—the Mediator—to be a multitudinous one. This we see taught in the words, "A prophet from the midst of thee of thy brethren," i.e., a prophet consisting of brethren gathered out from among God's nominal people of Fleshly and Spiritual Israel's. St. Peter (Acts 3:19-25) was the first of the Apostles to catch even a partial understanding of this multitudinous Prophet; for it was not until St. Paul's ministry that this Prophet was fully understood as being the Christ, Head and Body, the hidden mystery now made manifest to the saints (Col. 1:26, 27). A comparison of Is. 49:7, 8 with 2 Cor. 6:1, 2 proves the same thing; for the one (Head and Body) who, in Is. 49:7, 8, it is said, will be given for (in the interests of, i.e., to seal) a covenant of the people, is in 2 Cor. 6:1, 2 by Divine inspiration shown to include the Church, called, in this the time accepted, for sacrifice unto the great salvation (Heb. 2:3). The Messenger of the Covenant (Mal. 3:1) likewise is the Head and Body, who in their Second Advent will come to seal the Covenant. This passage also applies to Christ—the Head and Body—coming to mankind in His First Advent, and 

Sin-Offering Errors of the Shimites. 

493 

that because He thus types the coming of this larger Mediator in the Second Advent, even as John the Baptist typed the Church in the flesh in the end of this Age, preparing the way for the larger Christ. 2 Cor. 3:6 calls us servants—those who advance or further the thing at hand—of the New Covenant. We serve, advance, the Covenant, especially in three ways now: (1) by laying down our lives for its seal; (2) by developing characters that will fit us to administer its provisions when they will operate; and (3) by helping our brethren to do the same two things. Hence this passage implies the multitudinous membership of the Mediator, as Head and Body. Our sharing with our Lord in drinking the cup of death makes it by His merit the seal of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20). Jesus is the surety of a better covenant (Heb. 7:22) than the Old Law Covenant, because His merit makes the death of His Body the seal of that Covenant. Hence His suretying it proves our participation in its Mediator. To surety something implies that it will operate later on—in the future, and not now. The allusion (Heb. 8:3) to the High Priest who offers gifts and sacrifices, proves that from v. 3 on the Head and Body are meant. Hence v. 6 refers to the Mediator as Head and Body, not simply to the Head. The New Covenant is legalized—not established—on better promises. What are they? The oath-bound promises to the Christ, Head and Body (Gen. 22:17, 18; Gal. 3:16, 29); for these promises arouse them to such sacrificing zeal as enables them as New Creatures to lay down their humanity unto death as the seal of the New Covenant. This seal, so wrought, legalizes the New Covenant. Thus our examination of the Mediator figure proves that the Church is a part of the World's Mediator, and as such lays down a sin-offering under Her Head. The Head and Body figure is here set forth and destroys the distinction necessary to the theory under examination, that of the 1908-1911 sifters, whose views are accepted by the majority and tolerated by the rest of the P.B.I.

Gershonism. 

494 

We congratulate the former adherents, who, loyal to our Pastor's teachings on the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants, have left the P.B.I. after it in its majority fell away from the pertinent truths; and we deplore the stand of the unfaithful P.B.I. on this matter. This stand is a proof that the New Creatures in the P.B.I. who endorse or tolerate these errors are crown-losers. "From such turn away"! 

Our review of the antitypical Gershonites in both of their main branches while in their unclean Levitical condition is now completed. Theirs is a sorry story. As typed by the Gershonites, the descendants of Levi's firstborn son, Gershon, they might have become the chief of the three groups of the Levites; but as because of unfitness the typical Gershonites failed to keep the chief place among the Levites, and had to yield that place, to which, other things being equal, they had the prior right, to the Kohathites; so the antitypical Gershonites, because of the greater guilt of their revolutionisms than those of other Levites, failed to keep their place, to which, other things being equal, they had the prior right, and had to yield that place to the antitypical Kohathites. Yea, they have had to sink into a position about the Epiphany Tabernacle lower even than that of the antitypical Merarites. While the Scriptures chastise the evils of the leader of the antitypical Merarites more than those of the leaders of the antitypical Gershonites, the latter are more disapproved in the Scriptural types than the former, which accounts for their lower position about the Epiphany Tabernacle than the formers'. However, we rejoice to know that there is a silver lining to the dark cloud: These will shortly begin to cleanse themselves, and then the Lord will give them the ministry of evangelists, missionaries and preachers of the truths of Studies, Vol. I to the new Camp that will be begun when the Levites will come to their senses. We rejoice in this and hail it with eager expectation.