Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
SOME LIBNITE GERSHONITE ERRORS
WM. CRAWFORD ON JUSTIFICATION. WM. CRAWFORD ON THE END OF ALL THINGS.
HIDING himself behind the name, The Old Paths Publications, W.C., a former British manager; whose revolutionary course as such has been described in Chapter I, and who was the first Levite to be forced out of the Holy into the Epiphany Court for his gross revolutionisms against the Lord's arrangements for the London Bethel and Tabernacle, has been publishing a series of tracts, one of which, on justification by faith, has been sent us by one of our correspondents. It will be recalled that one of the charges that we then brought against him was his denial, in opposition to our Pastor's teachings, of the Scriptural doctrine that our Lord's merit is during the Gospel Age imputed to the justified; and another was his affirmation that the Church is actually purchased. But the tract shows, even as we should expect of so stubborn a sifter, that he has gone into error on many other points connected with justification. The following are some of these other errors: (1) The Millennial-Age and Gospel-Age justifications are, respectively, physical and by faith. (2) The Ancient Worthies' and our justification are exactly alike. (3) Faith is the only thing that is imputed in justification. (4) Christ does not impute His merit for us Godward. (5) God and Christ do not impute that merit to us. (6) From Pentecost onward God for eternity holds as inalienably His the ransom's merit by right of our actual sale. (7) God must retain it or undo the ransom. (8) The doctrine of Christ's depositing His merit with the Father is untrue. (9) Christ's imputing its credit as a loan for and to us is erroneous.
(10) God alone justifies. (11) The justified receive Adam's, not Jesus', right to life and life-rights. (12) The life-rights of the Church will in the Millennium purchase Adam and the world.
Most of his errors are due to his confusing the work of the Ransomer, High Priest, Advocate, Mediator and Father. If we keep the distinctions in mind between the office works implied in these names, as set forth in Vol. IV, Chap. V, we will see through most of the fallacies of his position. Another thing that will help one to see through his fallacies is a well-rounded view that takes all the pertinent factors into consideration—a thing that he does not do. A third thing helpful in this connection is the teaching of Lev. 12, to the effect that the Little Flock developing Truth was gradually purified from error during the reaping period and was entirely free therefrom at its end, while W.C. in part holds on to the immature views of the early part of the Harvest to the denial of its mature final views. Without naming our Pastor, he almost throughout his tract opposes and seeks to refute our Pastor's mature findings— revolutionism. The above-mentioned twelve points, in addition to the two errors with which we charged him twenty-one years ago, show how he has progressed further in error. We will take up these points in the order given and refute them with Scripture, reason and facts from various viewpoints.
(1) His first wrong teaching is the following: The Millennial justification is physical in contrast with the Gospel Age's justification as being by faith. Thus stated, his view is soon seen to be both imperfect and specious, hiding, perhaps designedly, the real distinctions in these two forms of justification. The contrast between these two justifications, if the second is called justification by faith, is the following: justification by works as against justification by faith. Again, the Millennial justification will be physical, mental, moral and religious, not simply physical, if one would point out
the sides of human nature that are to experience justification. Hence he has given, from the standpoint of the sides of man's nature to experience justification, a very incomplete definition. But if the nature of the condition of justification, as to effects, in these two Ages is to be contrasted, the proper distinction is: the Millennial justification will be actual; the present one is reckoned, not actual. But his teaching denies a reckoned justification, because of the latter's inevitable implications as to the imputation of Christ's merit and a reckoned purchase by Christ as now operative, in contrast with the actual application of Christ's merit and an actual purchase operative in the Millennium. Thus we see the cloven hoof in the clumsy and illogical contrast that he tries to make between Millennial and present justification. He thus runs true to form.
(2) His next error is that the Ancient Worthies' and our justifications are exactly alike. As a matter of fact, they are alike only on one point, namely, the instrumental cause of justification in both cases is alike, i.e., faith is the only part of righteousness which God has required both classes to exercise in order tentatively to impute righteousness to them. And it is the only thing that He has imputed to both classes as righteousness, and therein their justification (tentative) is much alike. God did not, as W.C. contends He did, impute the robe of righteousness to the Ancient Worthies; for the good reason that such a robe was not then in existence. The tract under review cites Job 29: 14, where job says: "I put on righteousness and it clothed me; and my judgment was as a robe and a diadem," as a proof that the robe of righteousness was imputed to the Ancient Worthies. But it confuses God's imputing the robe of righteousness in justification (Is. 61: 10) with the Ancient Worthies' and our putting on (clothing ourselves with) the graces, of which righteousness, duty love, is one, in the work of sanctification (1 Pet. 5: 5; Col. 3: 12).
Clearly, job 29: 14 and its connection prove that Job refers here to sanctification, not to justification. As we will show under the next point, Christ's righteousness is imputed, first tentatively, then vitalizedly, in our justification, a thing that was not a part of the Ancient Worthies' justification. The only thing that in justification covered their sins was faith (Rom. 4: 3-8), which is not the robe of righteousness; while in our justification faith and the robe of righteousness cover our sins (Is. 61: 10; Rom. 4: 23-25). Nor was there, nor could there have been, a tentative or vitalized imputation of Christ's merit Godward in the justification of the Ancient Worthies (since it was not yet in existence), while there is such an imputation in our justification. Again, life was not imputed to the Ancient Worthies in justification, while it is in our tentative and vitalized justification. The proof of these three points we will give under our third line of argument. Thus, while in one respect these two justifications are similar, in three other very material respects they are quite unlike, which must be kept in mind.
(3) The tract's third error is that faith is the only thing imputed in justification. As a consequence, it denies that Christ imputes His merit Godward for us, and that God has Him impute it to us. It most confusingly mixes up the ransom with justification, whereas it is not the Ransomer, but the Advocate—Attorney—who acts on our behalf in justification. Justification is a feature of a court scene, which implies God as judge, His justice as the law, the sinner as guilty defendant and Christ as Attorney, who satisfies justice in its twofold demands on the defendant: (1) who has broken the law and thus is guilty, justice, therefore, demanding his death, and (2) additionally, justice demands his perfect obedience to its laws, which demand the sinner cannot meet. As Advocate, Jesus satisfies both of these demands of justice—(1) His death, the evidence of which is His blood, offered as such in heaven
after His ascension, satisfying its demands for the sinner's death, and (2) His righteousness as a perfect human being satisfying the demands of justice for the sinner's perfect obedience to all its laws. The tract under review entirely ignores this second part of the Advocate's work Godward and usward, and that for the good reason that it denies what unanswerably flows from it, i.e., the only way that Christ's righteousness can be instantly bestowed, as it is in a faith-justifying dispensation, Godward and manward combinedly, is by imputation; because there cannot be an instantaneous making of a depraved character righteous, as distinct from imputing it righteous. It must, therefore, if it is done instantly, be done by imputation, both Godward and manward; for an actual giving of it instantly would be nonsense in a character-production process, an annihilation of such a process! Hence Christ's human, not new-creaturely, righteousness is in justification as a part of His merit imputed for and to the believer tentatively before and vitalizedly after consecration; for if Christ's human righteousness is imputed to us, it must have before been imputed to Divine justice for us, the former implying the latter. Therefore there are three imputations in justification (1) the merit of Christ's death and righteousness imputed to God's justice for us; (2) His righteousness imputed to us; and (3) faith—a part of righteousness—imputed to us for righteousness, i.e., all that the Father insists on our having, if He would justify us. The Advocate's work, therefore, destroys the main erroneous positions of the tract under review, i.e., that faith is the only thing imputed as righteousness in justification, which, without the Advocate, in the case of the Ancient Worthies was the only thing imputed; for it proves that Christ's righteousness is therein imputed Godward and manward.
Additionally, the idea of substitution which is the special feature of the Advocate's work—that of our
Attorney appearing in Court for us as clients—wherein He substituted His death for our death sentence, and a sufficiency of His righteousness for our lacks in righteousness to satisfy instantaneously the two demands of justice on us for our instantaneous justification, and wherein He later substitutes as much of His righteousness as is needed to cover our post-justification sins instantly (1 John 2: 1, 2) unanswerably proves that all of the acts in the heavenly Court that produce justification for us are imputative and from the nature of substitution cannot be otherwise. The Ransomer's work can be by the loan of His credit—a reckoned purchase—or by an actual purchase; but the Advocate's cannot be otherwise than by imputation; for the Advocate's work is that of substitution, which in its very nature must be imputative. How could another's death become ours except by imputation? How could another's righteousness become instantaneously ours except by imputation? But His death does become ours (Is. 53: 3-12; 1 Cor. 15: 3; 2 Cor. 5: 19; 1 John 2: 2); and His righteousness does become ours instantaneously (Rom. 4: 20-26; 10: 4; 1 Cor. 1: 30; 2 Cor. 5: 21; Gal. 2: 16; 3: 22; Phil. 3: 9; in the first and in the last three citations the expression faith of Jesus Christ means the faithfulness, righteousness, of Jesus Christ as a human being). These considerations on the Advocate's work—substitution— overthrow practically every point of the tract under review in its attacks on our Pastor's teachings on justification. Its errors on this point, let us repeat, are due to its failure to recognize that it is the Advocate's, not the Ransomer's work to effect justification by faith during the Gospel Age. It is the instantaneousness of the Advocate's securing all the features of justification that limits the Advocate's work to this Age; for the Millennial justification will require the thousand years to accomplish, and therefore there will then be no Advocate.
We further disprove the proposition that faith is the only imputed thing in justification by another line of thought— everything in the Gospel-Age justification is a matter of imputation. Thus the removal of death that we experience therein is not an actual, but a reckoned thing. So, too, the bestowal of perfect and eternal life that we receive therein is also not actual, but reckoned; otherwise we would not be dying, which we do even apart from sacrificing, and would have perfect bodies (John 5: 27, 28; 1 John 5: 12). Moreover, our perfection is not an actual, but a reckoned thing (Heb. 10: 14); otherwise we would be actually flawless. Admittedly, faith is imputed as righteousness in the present Age (Rom. 4: 3-8, 23-25). Undoubtedly, the Bible teaches that Christ in His human righteousness is made our righteousness (Rom. 3: 21-26; 10: 4; 1 Cor. 1: 30; 2 Cor. 5: 21; Gal. 2: 16; 3: 22; Phil. 3: 9; as pointed out above the expression, faith of Jesus Christ, in the first and last three of the above passages means, the faithfulness, righteousness, of Jesus Christ as a human being); and as we showed above, this cannot be possible in a faith-justification dispensation except as an imputed matter. Above we proved that the use of the merit by the Advocate Godward, in the Court picture, is also an imputed matter; for in a substitution of one for another the substitute's merits cannot be given, they must be imputed to the other. And, finally, a seventh fact proves this: Not His full merit, but only so much of the Substitute's merit is imputed to each one as is needed to bring up his deficiencies to perfection. This principle is manifest from certain features connected with the ransom, but not of the entire ransom-price itself, in the jubilee type: The varying prices paid to redeem, not a debt (which required the whole sum—typical of the debt of the human all surrendered in death and met in the ransom), but a slave or a piece of property, dependent on the length of time to the next jubilee, were typical
of the varying amounts of the ransom-merit required for the reckoned purchase to bring people from varying degrees of imperfection to perfection. Such a transaction types how the credit of parts of the ransom-merit are loaned to individuals, squaring each of them with human perfection, which is typed by the jubilee condition—restitution. That this same principle of dealing applies to the Advocate's picture is evident from 1 John 2: 1, 2, where the Advocate is shown to make good before Divine justice our sins of weakness and ignorance committed even after we entered the state of both tentative and vitalized justification, the Advocate's picture proving that imputation, not an actual or reckoned buying, is the pertinent act. These seven things connected with justification, covering its every aspect in the present Age, demonstrate that in justification, not only is faith imputed for righteousness, but also Christ's merit (His death and righteousness) is imputed Godward and usward. But they prove more than this. They prove that the buying of the Church by our Lord is not an actual, but a reckoned thing, which fact destroys practically every error of the tract under review in its opposition to the Scriptural views of our Pastor, and, prove our Pastor to have taught correctly on the pertinent subjects, as by 1914 he did on all reaping subjects.
(4) and (5) The two errors of the tract marked (4) and (5) above, i.e., that Christ does not impute His merit for the Church Godward, but pays it over to God in a finished actual purchase, and that God does not impute Christ's merit to us, are disproved by the two preceding points and need no further discussion.
(6) The sixth error of the tract is this: From Pentecost onward God for eternity holds as inalienably His the ransom-price by right of an actual sale. The tract attempts to prove this by Heb. 9: 12. But the eternal redemption here spoken of was obtained before Jesus entered the Most Holy; "having obtained eternal
redemption," therefore it has no reference to putting the blood on the antitypical mercy seat, let alone binding it to remain there eternally. It refers to His sin offering merit, which Paul calls our eternal redemption, because it was to secure the latter by its sprinkling on the mercy seat and altar. No Scripture teaches the thought of the tract under review, that God from Pentecost onward must forever hold the ransom as inalienably His. In elaborating this point the tract mixes up the sin-offering with the ransom figure, and utterly neglects to discuss the only feature pertinent to justification—the Advocate's work of substitution—in connection with the discussion of the pertinent point; but claims as proof of its contention that the blood remained on the mercy seat. While the merit used in ransoming and in making atonement is one and the same, the acts differ: the one purchases, the other reconciles. W.C. uses the point that the blood was left on the mercy seat, where it took away God's displeasure at our sins, to prove that nothing was imputed to us of Christ's merit in justification. But he forgot that the same blood was sprinkled upon the altar to reconcile it (Lev. 16: 18). This altar represents the humanity of Jesus and the Church. The sprinkling of the bullock's blood on that altar did not type the imputation of Jesus' merit to Himself, for He did not need it for perfection. Rather, it typed His imputation of His merit to us, as distinct from His imputing it to God to take away His anger at our sins (sprinkling it on the mercy seat). These two things complete the first part of our reconciliation to God, making us pleasing to God; while the sprinkling of the goat's blood on the altar types the performing of the second part of our atonement, making God pleasing to us, which occurs through the perfecting of our characters by our sacrificial suffering—the antitypical Goat's blood. This consideration completely refutes his point taken from the blood remaining on the mercy seat, as
a proof that Christ's merit is not imputed to us in addition to its being placed on the antitypical mercy seat. The same thing is proven by Lev. 9: 9, and is implied in v. 12. Aaron's sons' presenting the bullock's blood to Aaron types the Little Flock's offering their tentatively-received justification—tentatively reckoned perfect bodies, right to life and life-rights—to Christ in consecration; and Aaron's sprinkling it on the altar represents our Lord's performing that part of His; work of vitalizing our justification that consists of His imputing to us the amount of His merit needed to make us pleasing to God; and thus He completes the first part of the at-one-ment, which first part has these two steps: (1) by the blood covering the antitypical mercy seat, taking away God's anger at our sins; and 1 (2) by the blood on the antitypical altar, making Him pleased with us as righteous (by Christ's imputed merit). The sprinkling of the blood not only on the book, but on the people, in principle, disproves this sixth error (Heb. 9: 19-23). These considerations destroy the sixth error of W.C.'s tract and lend further proof against the tract's third, fourth and fifth errors.
(7) His seventh error is that God must retain the ransom-price or the ransom work would be void. He uses this point against the thought that Christ gets His ransom-merit back from the Father and then loans the credit of it to the Church now, and will give it to the world in the next age. In P '29, 44, par. 6, we give seven facts that prove that God does this very thing. We herewith quote those proofs:
"We know that God gives back to Jesus the ransom price as an asset after Jesus uses it to purchase Adam's forfeited assets, from the following facts: (1) In the priesthood figure, not only did Aaron sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat (satisfy justice), but he made atonement for the altar (made our humanity reckonedly perfect). (2) In the mediator figure, not only did Moses sprinkle the book (satisfy justice), but he
also sprinkled of the blood of the bulls and goats on the people (typically lifted the people up to perfection by typically bestowing of his merit on them). (3) John 6: 27-58 and 3: 15, 16 also show the double giving; for John 3: 15, 16 shows that the ransom of the Son cancels the sentence ("not perish") and gives perfection ("eternal life") and John
6: 27-58 shows that the meat which endureth unto everlasting life is given by the Son. And that meat is His flesh (v. 27). In v. 33 He shows that this is His humanity and that it gives life to the world, not simply forgiveness of sins. V. 50 shows that His humanity, if appropriated by a person, will keep one from death, frees from and keeps free from the sentence. V. 51 shows that His humanity is that which He will give for the life of the world, that is, for the bestowing of everlasting life upon him who appropriates ("eats") it. John 6: 27-58, therefore, shows that our Lord's death not only cancels the sins of the Church and the world, but also bestows life everlasting on the one who appropriates that which He laid down, that is, His humanity and His right to life and life-rights. In these verses His flesh stands for His humanity and His blood for His human right to life and human life-rights.
"(4) The same is taught in the Lord's Supper: Our eating of the bread represents not only that we appropriate forgiveness, but that we appropriate what He was—a perfect human being with His right to life and life-rights— 'This is [represents] My body which is given for you, etc.' This is evidently represented in the Lord's Supper, even as John 6 gives the key to the understanding of that Supper. (5) Heb. 10: 14 shows that by His merit He perfects the humanity of the Church, not only that He secures its forgiveness. (6) Jesus, being the Second Adam, as a Father gives life that is His own to the world, as well as imputes it to us, in addition to securing forgiveness. (7) In justification the same things work: God forgives us and the
righteousness of Christ is imputed to us as our righteousness (Rom. 3: 21, 22; 10: 4; 1 Cor. 1: 30; 2 Cor. 5: 21; Gal. 2: 16; 3: 22; Phil. 3: 9). These seven proofs show that Jesus' merit not only cancels the sentence, but also gives perfect humanity with the pertinent rights imputedly to the Church and actually to the world." So far our quotation from P '29, 44, par. 6. We might add to them both proofs previously given above, from Lev. 16: 18 and 9: 9, 12. Also the jubilee type shows this. To cancel a debt before the jubilee required its full payment: The whole ransom must be reckonedly paid to God to secure us from bankruptcy resulting in slavery to God unto death—the antitype of the debt; but to release one from slavery or one's property from others' ownership before the jubilee required a graded payment, dependent on the varying lengths of time to the jubilee. This types the fact that only so much of the ransom-merit is imputed for and to one as is needed to make him perfect. The above ten proofs demonstrate the falsity of the seventh error, whose folly is now manifest.
Moreover, his seventh error is transparent nonsense for it implies that one having received full payment in a business transaction, cannot use the purchase price for some other financial matter without voiding the first transaction. In business such things are constantly being done; and who is so foolish as to claim that the later transactions void the earlier? Moreover, there would be no ransom-price available for the purchase of the world unless God and our Lord by a reckoned, not an actual purchase, had so arranged as to let Jesus have a claim on the deposited merit in order later to purchase, actually, the world; for if to make operative a faith-justification method of salvation, our Lord had to surrender forever His claim on His merit by an actual purchase, such an arrangement would have estopped His having the ownership of that merit to purchase the world for a works justification method
of salvation. The tract seeks to evade the force of this fact by the claim that the world is not purchased by Christ's ransom-merit, but by the Church's life-rights! The mess it makes of this matter we will consider later. But this evasion shows the straits to which W.C. is put by his errors on justification.
(8) His next error is the teaching that it is untrue that Christ put His merit on deposit with the Father. This error directly contradicts the proper translation of Luke 23: 46.
(9) His ninth error is: Christ does not impute in the Advocate's figure, or in the ransom figure lend to us the credit of, His merit. Above we have given abundant proof that He does. To prove its point the tract under review claims that one cannot pay a debt by a loan. Then it gives as an illustration of its meaning: a man lending to his creditor for a week the amount of his debt and claiming that he thereby discharges his debt. If that illustration fitted the case that it is alleged to illustrate, of course it would prove the tract's point; but it utterly fails to fit the case. The following is the actual situation: The whole race is involved in the debt of Adam—it stands in full against each and all. It, therefore, requires as much to purchase one as to purchase all. God sees that the race so involved in debt consists of two classes: (1) a faith class, capable of development in character fit for spiritual natures of varying orders; and (2) an unbelief class capable of development no higher than perfect human nature. He desires to help each to attain his highest possibilities. Therefore He determined to deal with the faith class under faith-exacting conditions which they can endure and which will fit them for various spiritual natures—conditions too strenuous for the others to endure because of their lack of faith, whom, therefore, He decides to try under conditions not so exacting as to faith, as under such only can they be successful. But all alike have
the same debt against them, whose full equivalent our Lord has, in their interests. It being necessary to test these two classes under two different dispensational provisions, and it taking all Christ's merit to free one or all in the first dispensational process, some arrangement had to be devised to matte it available for the second; otherwise the one and same debt owed by those under the second would have no corresponding-price available to free its subjects. To meet this situation, God arranged for Christ, not actually, but reckonedly to purchase the Church, as follows: (1) to deposit the ransom-price into God's hands (Luke 23: 46); (2) to appear before God to purchase (reckonedly) only the -Church (Rev. 5: 9; 14: 3, 4), by imputing the credit of His deposit with God for the Church. God could accept a loan of the credit of this deposit without violating Divine justice, and that for three reasons: (1) The Deposit covered the full debt involved: (2) it left that price fully in His hands; and (3) Christ previously pledged Him that He would put all on whose behalf He loaned the credit of the Deposit into death as humans forever—either into the sacrificial death (Little Flock), or the ministerial death (Great Company), or the second death,—so that God would actually, as long as they lived, have in His hands the full value of their debt to Him, as security for His full rights in them.
These three things made God fully satisfied by a loan of credit to us which was covered fully by the ransom-price as security. And since this remains in God's hands until the pertinent persons are all dead forever as humans, the involved acts are properly to be regarded as a reckoned purchase. This, also, when all the pertinent persons are dead, leaves the deposit free from claims of the formerly outstanding loans of credit; for the formerly outstanding loans will be no longer loans, the death of the pertinent persons freeing the merit from the embargoes on it; for beings
(the human beings) who are dead forever in the hands of justice can no more have the loans formerly made for them, their human all now being forever in the hand of the creditor as owned by Him, which cancels the loans. Hence at the end of this Age the deposited merit will be free from all embargoes formerly resting on it by virtue of the outstanding loans of its credit. Hence Christ, owning this deposit, has it available for an actual purchase of the world, which He will make, to cause the works-justifying process of salvation to operate. The many proofs that we gave above of imputations, which in the ransom figure assume the actuality of a reckoned purchase by a deposit, by a surrender of temporal control over the deposit to God and by loans of credit from our Lord to us, prove that the Gospel-Age arrangement was made effective as above described, and conserve the ownership of the ransom with our Lord actually to purchase the world in the next Age. How utterly unfit to the actual conditions as above described is, therefore, the tract's illustration to prove one cannot pay a debt by a week's loan of the amount of the debt. Our proofs above demonstrate the imputation and the reckoned purchase by Jesus as Advocate and Ransomer.
(10) The tenth proposition as given in the tract is in part erroneous. It is this, viz., God alone justifies. While He is the most important agent in justification, He is one of three agents therein. The complete truth on the subject is this: Three agents justify, but each from a different standpoint: (1) God as Benefactor and judge alone is the originating and efficient cause of justification (Rom. 8: 33); (2) Christ alone is the meritorious cause of justification (Rom. 3: 22-26; 5: 1; 10: 4; 1 Cor. 1: 30; 2 Cor. 5: 21; Gal. 2: 16; 3: 22; Phil. 3: 9); (3) Faith is the only instrumental cause of justification, i.e., the only agent that lays hold on and appropriates justification (see passages just referred to and numerous others).
(11) The next error of the tract under review is: The justified received Adam's, not Jesus' right to life and life-rights. It falls into this error as follows: Jesus purchases Adam's forfeited rights, which would then be His assets after the purchase; therefore the Church receives Adam's, not Jesus' right to life and life-rights. We have already discussed this question (P '29, 44, 45). Above we gave many proofs to the contrary. Jesus' merit purchases Adam's life-rights; but the Scriptures clearly show, in part by the proofs that we gave under (3) and (7), that it is Jesus' right to life and life-rights that are imputed to us and that will be given to the world. It is the bullock's blood that was sprinkled on the altar—Jesus' and the Church's humanity, but here sprinkled only for the Church's humanity (Lev. 16: 18; 9: 9, 12). It will be the blood of the antitypical Bullock and Goat that will be sprinkled on the antitypical people— the world (Heb. 9: 19-23). Thus He is not only the propitiation for the Church and the world (1 John 2: 2), but life for the Church and the world. Adam is not the father of our and the world's justified humanity. Jesus is the reckoned Father—life-giver—of our humanity (John 5: 27, 28; 1 John 5: 12), and will be the actual Father of the world (Is. 9: 6); for He, not the Adam who sinned, and who forever lost life for us, is the Second Adam, the Second Life-Giver, who gives eternal life (1 Cor. 15: 45-48); for, as per P '29, 44, 45, quoted above, God arranged with Jesus to have the right of imputing or giving His, not Adam's, rights. Adam's are not used at all in these acts, reckonedly or actually.
(12) The final error of the tract under review that we will answer is this: The life-rights of the Church will purchase Adam and the world in the Millennium. The tract's author thinks that this is true, because the Church is the antitype of the Lord's goat as a sin-offering. This error, in the first place, is based on a confusion of the ransom and the Church's share in the
sin-offering; and is supposed to be taught by the type of Lev. 16. But its propounder has seemingly forgotten that it is the merit of the antitypical Bullock that constitutes the merit of the antitypical Goat, and not, as he says, the merit of the antitypical Goat that constitutes the merit of the second sin-offering's blood-sprinkling. The type of Lev. 9 was given for the express purpose of denying that it is the Church's merit that atones (Lev. 9: 7); for Lev. 9: 7 shows that it was the bullock's blood that made atonement for everyone in Israel: priests, Levites and Israelites, though the goat's blood was connected with it in this service. Please read our Pastor's remarks on this in T 79. The proper thought is this: Christ's merit is by and through the second sin-offering-the humanity of the Church—made available for the purchase of the world; thus Christ's merit through the Church's sin-offering purchases the world, makes propitiation for the world (1 John 2: 2), seals the Covenant world-ward (blood of bulls and goats; Heb. 9: 19-23), gives the right to life and life-rights (Second Adam), etc., etc., etc.
But the real mess that W.C. makes of his thought that the Church's life-rights will purchase—ransom—Adam and the world, comes out in the way the tract tries to explain how the life-rights of 144,000 persons can ransom Adam and his race: He puts it like this: Christ and the Church as the Mystery have but one individuality; hence the 144,00 life-rights are a corresponding price for Adam and the race. This is a total error. They are indeed one Company, one Body, and have but one will and, therefore, but one identity, but they have 144,001 individualities. Each member of the Christ is an individual ("We being many are one Body"), though they have only one identity—the Head. The Body's human life-rights are those of 144,000 individuals. Hence these cannot be the corresponding price—the purchase-price—of
the life-rights of Adam (his lost race never had life-rights or the right to life). A corresponding-price—a perfect human being with the right to life and life-rights—is the purchase-price for Adam; and this corresponding-price, including among its life-rights the right to beget a race with the right to life with its accompanying life-rights, covers all the needs of the race lost in Adam by that particular life-right. Thus our Lord alone ransoms the Church by a reckoned purchase and Adam and his race by an actual purchase. The Church shares in the ransom, not from the standpoint of its merit being the ransom-price for the world, but from the standpoint (1) that: Her sacrifice, as sharing in His sufferings, makes Christ's ransom-price available for use in purchasing the world; and (2) as members of His, sharing with Him in the ownership of His human merit, or as His Bride, sharing with Him, Her Husband, in all His possessions (and this thought underlies all pertinent types and literal Scriptures); but (3) not by her own human life-rights being used as the purchase-price is Adam and the world ransomed; for these are the life-rights of 144,000 individuals, and no amount of juggling with words can make them a corresponding-price to Adam's forfeited rights. Christ's merit and Christ's merit alone is the ransom-price. A humble spirit would never have taught the error that we have just refuted.
Before closing this subject we desire to refer to an error that is not held by W.C., so far as we know, but that a correspondent of ours has allowed to deceive her into endorsing the teachings of an elder whose views we refuted in P '29, 44, 45, under the title, Some Ransom Considerations. She says that she was led to endorse his view which denies that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, because, she says, it is impossible to spot the robe of Christ's righteousness. If she had understood that our Lord imputes to each one, not all
of His human righteousness, but only so much as is needed to bring up his imperfect qualities to perfection, she would perhaps be able to see how we can spot our own robes, which are called Christ's righteousness, because He supplements our lacks of perfection until we are brought up to perfection. E.g., Paul may have lacked ten per cent of perfection; hence (as the jubilee type, as above explained, proves) our Lord would in his case impute but ten per cent of His human righteousness, which would make him reckonedly perfect and would constitute with his ninety per cent of perfection his robe (Col. 2: 10; 2 Cor. 12: 9). So viewed, our robe of righteousness, properly called, Christ's righteousness, can be spotted, not in that part of it which our Lord imputed, but in that part of it which we in ourselves had of good, though imperfect, and therefore had to be supplemented by as much of Christ's merit as is needed to make us reckonedly perfect. Our sins do not spot His merit, but our good.
Let us be on our guard, Beloved, especially on the ransom and sin-offerings; for these are Satan's chief target, and he above all things seeks to make the Feet dash against that Rock (Ps. 91: 12). If we dwell—are faithful—in the secret place—the antitypical Holy we will be kept safe (Ps. 91: 1-6).
In the Oct., Nov. and Dec., 1932, Berean Bible Student is published an article entitled, The End Of All Things, written by W.C., who was the first Levite to be led to the gate, who now masks himself under the name of The Old Paths Publications, and who in this, as in other tracts of his, forsakes the old paths as they were pointed out to the Lord's people by that Servant and points to new and devious paths for their feet. Apart from the one just examined and the one that we are now about to examine, we will not devote any more space to the examination of the numerous errors in his many other articles and tracts. Now to the one before us. We will first quote G. K. Bolger's
endorsement of it (an endorsement of revolutionism) and his analysis of it, so that our readers may see what the teachings of the article are. Then we will give our understanding of the main pertinent points as a basis for our refutation of its positions. G. K. Bolger's comments are as follows
"If the reader will turn to the Comments on Daniel, chapters 2 and 7, and Revelation, chapters 12, 13 and 17, he will be instantly convinced that the present study is indeed a supplementary contribution which establishes more firmly than ever the Truth already brought from the 'storehouse' by our beloved Pastor. It bears the unmistakable evidence of having been produced by one of the faithful 'scribes' (writers) of whom Jesus spoke in Matt. 13: 52, who, 'instructed in the Kingdom of Heaven' is like 'a householder who bringeth forth out of his treasury things new and old.' In order that the reader may visualize beforehand the salient features that are different, as well as those points that are identical with the views already given of the 'Gentile beast' in 'Studies in The Scriptures,' the following outline is herewith given: It must be borne in mind throughout this study that the 'Four Beasts' of Daniel are identical with the first four [heads] of the 'seven beasts' [heads] of Revelation which depicts but one beast 'having seven heads,' and also an 'eighth, which is of the seven.' It is therefore evident that the seven stages of the one long period of Gentile dominion, are most vividly represented by seven heads upon the one Gentile beast, whose first head was Babylon.
"First Head, Babylon, represented by Nebuchadnezzar.
"Second Head, the Kingdom of Medo-Persia.
"Third Head, the Kingdom of Greece.
"Fourth Head, Imperial Rome.
"Fifth Head, Papal Rome.