Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13







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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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?



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



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



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



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



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



"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.



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



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



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



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



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



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