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


his position. It is true that he carefully avoids using the words "develop the graces," and "develop character," but he describes the thing itself: for no one can explain this problem in addition (2 Pet. 1: 5-7), then making the graces so developed active after they are added, and then finally making them abound, without describing character development; for this is the cultivating of the higher primary graces, making them active and causing them to abounddevelop and control all our other qualities of heart and mind. This is what St. Peter explains, and he uses the word add in the sense of development beyond what was previously had or cultivated. How can one add one grace to another unless he cultivates it? This proves that the word add is here used in the sense of develop, cultivate; and as it is the gracesqualities of heartthat are cultivated, of course character is developed; for it is cultivating ("add") the graces, making them active ("if these things be in you") and causing them to abound ("and abound") in their higher primary kinds.


Then he affects groundlessly a contrast between developing a Christlike character and keeping our covenant. The following proves this: Our consecration is our promise to God to be dead to self and the world and to be alive to God. The carrying out of this promise develops a Christlike character; for Jesus' qualities of heart and mind as a New Creature—His spiritual as distinct from His human qualities—were developed by His remaining dead to self and the world and alive to God amid His varied experiences. For what did His carrying out of His vows move Him to do? To cultivate self-denial and world-denial, meditate on God's Word, spread God's Word, practice God's Word and suffer for loyalty to God's Word. These things developed Divine-mindedness in Him instead of His former human-mindedness, i.e., they cultivated a Divine character in Him. And when we fulfill the same covenant we develop a character like



His. Thus the very carrying out of our covenant produces a Divine character. Therefore the jugglery of the article, whereby the development of a Christlike character is set forth as a thing contrary to the keeping of our covenant ("Character Or Covenant—Which?") is clearly exposed.


This teaching of a supposed opposition between character development and covenant keeping, which is treated by J.F.R. as though it meant only serving the Truth, witnessing, is doubtless the basis of his extreme emphasis on service and his comparative neglect of emphasis on the other six features of covenant keeping: (1) deadness to self and the world, (2) study of the Word, (3) watchfulness and (4) prayer according to the Word, (5) practicing the Word and (6) suffering for loyalty to all six previous parts of our covenant keeping. This extreme emphasis injures many. We certainly believe in service. It is surely one of the seven features of our covenant obligations; but to stress it onesidedly and extremely to the comparative neglect of the other six features of our covenant obligations results in a one-sided and consequently narrow and insufficient development. A well rounded development, embracing all features of our covenant obligations, is needed if we would be conformed unto the image of God's Son.


In Z '26, 143, last question, J.F.R. renounces another teaching of our Pastor, i.e., that the earth is purchased in the ransom. By this renunciation he makes according to our observation, a ninth impingement against the ransom, as the following will show. By his sin Adam forfeited to Divine justice (1) his right to life and (2) his life-rights. Jesus for his ransom substituted (1) His human right to life and (2) His human life-rights. One of the human life-rights is ownership of a perfect earth. This Adam by sin forfeited to Divine Justice; hence Jesus' ransom purchases it back from Divine Justice for Adam



and his race. Therefore to deny Jesus' purchase of the earth in the ransom impinges against it; for it denies one of its features. The extreme emphasis on witnessing and the comparative neglect of emphasis on the other six features of our covenant obligations appear markedly in two articles that we will now review: Z '26, 163-168, "Sacrifice And Service"; and Z '26, 179-184, "Sacrifice And Obedience."


The first paragraph of the article on "Sacrifices And Service" is devoted to the exposition of a half-truth. It claims that Rom. 12: 1 is addressed to brethren in Christ; whereas it is directly addressed to those who have not yet presented their humanity to God, as our Pastor explained it. Hence the passage applies to the tentatively justified, inviting them to consecrate. But indirectly we may apply it, as our Pastor did, to the consecrated, as an exhortation to them to keep their bodies presented to God in their efforts to carry out their consecration. It is a favorite method of deceit in J. F. R, to state half-truths, with intent to hide the other halves, as e.g., in the matter of emphasizing vitalized justification to the ignoring of tentative justification. In par. 5 we have another illustration of a half-truth given as the full truth on faith, in the way of a definition: "Faith is an understanding and appreciation of God's Word as the truth, and a confident reliance upon that Word." The full definition of faith is: a mental appreciation of, and a heart's reliance upon, God and Christ, in respect to their beings, characters, words and works. Another half-truth is given in par. 8, where he says that "Sacrifice is the offering of anything to God by way of expiation or propitiation." While such a definition fits the sacrifice of Jesus and the Church, it cannot fit the sacrificesconsecration worksof the Ancient Worthies, Great Company, Youthful Worthies and the Restitution class. The expression that he adds as explanatory to his definition, "the destruction or surrender of anything



for the sake of something else that is higher or more desirable," is false as applicable to the Christ's sacrifice. This class did not consecrate with the hope of a reward, but as an expression of supreme faith in, and love for, God, to whom out of delight, and not for a reward, they took pleasure to yield themselves. It is important to watch the definitions of a half-truth teacher, because half-truths frequently, yea usually, hide the truth and give entrance to error.


While on this point of half-truths, we ought to mention how in Z '26, 147-152, in an article on "Holiness," he is guilty of the same method of deceit. He explains that holiness is such a devotion of self to the Lord as faithfully serves and keeps devotedly in the serving activity. Holiness not only implies devotion of self to God's service— witnessing—but the other six steps of the Christian life already mentioned, and the state of heart and mind that results from these seven activities. This error of omission on holiness is only another result of the one-sided emphasis that J.F.R. places on service.


In pars. 14, 15 we have some more half-truths on what one sacrifices. We are there told that all the Lord's people sacrifice the same amount of things: their right to live as perfect human beings in the perfect world. This is true; but it is not the full truth. The right to live with its accompanying life-rights are not really ours. They are only imputedly ours. They could not become ours actually until restitution time comes; so actually these are now sacrificed, not as a possession, but as a hope, while we now additionally sacrifice some actual possessions: what we actually are and have as human beings. It is true that from the standpoint of what we are imputedly we all sacrifice the same amount in quantity and quality, represented by the pound, a reckonedly perfect humanity—which alike all the servants received and are to use in sacrifice. But to claim, as J.F.R. does, that there is



no difference in the quantity and quality of what is consecrated to the Lord is, from the standpoint of what each one as an actual possession offers to God, a palpable untruth. To say, e.g., that Bro. Russell offered the Lord no more of actual possession than the least talented consecrator is a self-evident error.


The chief error of the article under review is its half-truths on the relation of the under-priests to their sacrifice. Like the Levites, J.F.R. contends that we are not now members of the World's High Priest, and as a consequence do not share in the sacrifice, i.e., we now do no sacrificing; but that our Lord does it all. The following sentence gives J.F.R.'s view: "His [Jesus'] body members, when complete and glorified, will then become a part of the High Priest; and then, and not until then, will such body members participate in the sin-offering." (Par. 26.) This actually means that they will never participate in the sin-offering, because it is finished before they are glorified! To such nonsense does the Levitical position on the subject lead!


Perhaps an explanation of what is meant by our High Priest offering the antitypical Lord's Goat, and of our coöperation with Him in sacrificial work may help clarify the situation. It was the ministry of Jesus that enabled us to consecrate  (1 Cor. 1: 30; 2 Cor. 3: 5); i.e., He by the Word and providences wrought a consecrating faith and love in our hearts, enabling us to consecrate; but we had to do the consecrating (Rom. 12: 1). Thus we offered ourselves as presents to God; but the presents being imperfect, God could not accept them. Jesus, then, as our High Priest, by the imputation of His merit, made the present reckonedly perfect, and then He alone, without our co-operation, offered us as gifts to God (Heb. 5: 1); for as yet we were not New Creatures, and were therefore not yet parts of His Body; and thus could not from any standpoint be said to have offered ourselves



as parts of the Lord's Goat to God, though we as individuals presented ourselves to be sacrificed. This work of offering our humanity to God as acceptable gifts is solely the work of our High Priest. This being done by our High Priest, God accepted the gifts by the bestowal of the Holy Spirit upon us; and this acceptance of the gifts made them parts of the second part of the one great sin-offering, i.e., the antitypical Lord's Goat (Heb. 13: 13); and henceforth we are represented as New Creatures in the Body of the High Priest, and in and under Him coöperate with Him in the sacrificial acts whereby our humanity is put to death (Heb. 13: 13, 15, 16; 1 Pet. 2: 5; 2 Cor. 2: 1417; Phil. 4: 18; Rom. 8: 10). Thus while our High Priest alone offers us to God, after we are offered to the Father, in Christ and under His direction we coöperate with Him in the sacrificial acts whereby our humanity is little by little and more and more used up unto death. Not only the Scriptures above quoted prove this; but the facts of our experience prove it, our preaching, teaching, witnessing, colporteuring, volunteering, sharp shooting, contributing, etc. While our humanity is passive in the hands of our High Priest, certainly our New Creatures are not passive in sacrificial service, but are very active under our High Priest's direction and power to energize our bodies in the Lord's service (Rom. 8: 10, 11); for we are servants of the New Covenant (2 Cor. 3: 6), and are co-workers with Christ (2 Cor. 6: 1). J.F.R. thinks that we as New Creatures do not coöperate with our Lord in sacrificing acts; and he uses this mistaken thought as a basis for concluding that we, therefore, do not coöperate with our High Priest in leading Azazel's Goat from the Door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court. As the basis of his conclusion is contrary to facts as well as to the Scriptures, so is his conclusion; for Aaron after killing the Lord's goat types



the World's High Priest, the Head and Body, and not simply the Head (Heb. 7: 26, 27).


While there was no Great Company class as such in the days of the Apostles, yet there were individuals who, having lost their crowns, as such were given experiences similar to the leading of the Azazel's Goat from the Door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court, and to sending him away by the fit man; and in these acts certain of the under-priests coöperated (1 Cor. 5: 4, 5;1 Tim. 1: 20). J.F.R. evidently has confused what our dear Pastor has said on our High Priest alone offering us to God, and the separate works whereby the thing offered is sacrificially used up in the Lord's service. The former is Jesus' work alone; the latter is primarily His work, and secondarily our New Creaturely coöperation with Him. So it is in the work of leading Azazel's Goat from the Door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court. This is the work of our Head primarily, who is pleased in harmony with the Father's plan, to use his under-priesthood in the flesh under His direction and by His power as His co-laborers in this work. Let us be faithful in such coöperation. This is our especial Epiphany work. Our understanding therefore of the Scriptures and that Servant's writings on the subject is the following: The World's High Priest has a two-fold ministry: (1) In Head and Body He first sacrifices for the world's sins (Heb. 7: 27; 10: 5-10; 13: 10-16; 1 Pet. 2: 5, 9); then (2) in Head and Body He delivers, by the At-one-ment work, the world from the sentence, power and effects of sin (Heb. 9: 28; 1 John 2: 2; Col. 3: 3, 4; Rom. 8: 18-21; Rev. 1: 6; 5: 10; 20: 6; 21: 3-5; 22: 1-3).


In T 51, par. 1, our dear Pastor, speaking of the Day of Atonement picture (Lev. 16), says: "In this type we find Aaron alone representing the entire Anointed One (Head and Body), and two different sacrifices, a bullock and a goat, are here used to represent



the separateness, yet similarity in suffering, of the Body and its Head, as the Sin-offering" (all italics ours). According to our Pastor, in sacrificing the bullock, Aaron types our Lord alone, and in sacrificing the goat he represents primarily our Lord and secondarily "the Church which is His Body," as chapter 4 of Tabernacle Shadows clearly teaches. Especially should we note par. 2 on page 49. Consequently the entire World's High Priest is active while in the flesh; and His second and third activities consist in sacrificing the Lord's Goat class, and in dealing with the Azazel's Goat class before his change of Garments. The picture of Lev. 16: 19-22 shows this as to Azazel's Goat; and the same is manifest from  1 Cor. 5: 313; 1 Tim. 1: 19, 20; Jude 22, 23, as literal passages treating of individuals who were given Great Company experiences and dealings at the hands of the Head and Body of the World's High Priest.


Heb. 7: 26, 27 is very strong as proving the activity—the ministry—of the Body, as well as the Head, while yet in the flesh. To understand clearly v. 27 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 over 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 the Bible (Is. 53: 9, 11; 2 Cor. 5: 21; 1 Pet. 2: 22; 1 John 3: 5). 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 Bible's purposes and Facts. This passage, therefore, proves that the Body of the World's High Priest under and with His Head, Jesus, exercises His ministry during the Gospel Age. The I. V. translates v. 26 as follows: For it behooved us [to be] such an High Priest, holy, etc. Here, as in v. 27, the High Priest is the World's, not the Church's High Priest, i.e., the Head and Body. St. Paul's exhortation to the Body of the World's High Priest, "Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp bearing His reproach," proves the same thing. So does St. Peter's statement, "Ye are a Holy Priesthood, to offer up sacrifices." Numerous other Scriptures prove the same thought. Additional to the passages cited we offer the following: Matt. 16: 24; Mark 10: 35-39; John 17: 18; Rom. 6: 3-11; 8: 10, 17; 1 Cor. 15: 29-34; 2 Cor. 1: 5; 4: 10; Gal. 2: 20; Phil. 3: 10; Col. 1: 24; 2 Tim. 2: 10-12; 1 Pet. 2: 19-24; 3: 14, 17; 4: 12-14, 16, 19. All of these passages show that we are ministering



sacrificially now as parts of the World's High Priest. Therefore in harmony with the Scriptures and that Servant's writings we teach that the World's High Priest, The Christ, Head and Body, ministers from 29 and 33 A.D. until 2874 A.D. During the Gospel Age He ministers the sacrifices as the basis of the Atonement, and for Azazel's Goat, and during the Millennial Age He will minister the At-one-ment between God and the people.


It is, of course, our Head who sacrifices us, and that because He is both our High Priest and our Head. However, in certain stages of the sacrificial acts we coöperate, after our High Priest has sacrificed us, i.e., has made the offering of us to the Fathera work in which we in no sense coöperate, though before that occurred we had to present (Rom. 12: 1) ourselves to God for sacrifice and be submissive in His hands. The steps are the following: Heeding the Lord's invitation, "Present your bodies a living sacrifice," we offered ourselves as gifts to God. It was Jesus' ministry that worked a consecrating faith and love in our hearts by the Word of God whereby we, who apart from Him can do nothing (John 15: 5), were enabled to offer ourselves as gifts, or presents. But these presents being imperfect, God could not accept them, since anything short of actual or reckoned perfection is not pleasing to Him. It is the office of a high priest to make the persons and works of those for whom he acts as high priest acceptable to God (Heb. 2: 17; 1 Pet. 2: 5), and to offer their gifts and sacrifices (Heb. 5: 1). Therefore, our High Priest undertakes to make our imperfect gifts, our humanity, and our sacrifices, works, acceptable to God (Heb. 13: 15, 16). The first of these He does by imputing a sufficiency of His merit on our behalf to bring up our gifts, our bodies, to perfection. This He does exclusively. Then He alone without our aid or coöperation offers us, individually,



to God as gifts, and thus fulfils a high-priestly function.


But this is not all; for the Lord's Goat is a Sin-offering, not a gift. The gift was offered to God. He accepted it by the impartation of the Holy Spirit, at the hands of our High Priest, not at our hands. It will be remembered that the gift that we presented, but that was not acceptable until covered by Jesus' merit, was unconditional: The Father was offered the gift for any purpose that He might desire. Hence its entire disposal and use were left unconditionally to His good pleasure. He has been pleased to accept the gift and convert it into a sin-offering—not that He must so do, but that as an act of grace He was pleased so to do. The thing that was an accepted gift was then offered by our High Priest to the Lord as a part of the second Sin-offering, each individual gift being now a part of the Lord's Goat. It was the exclusive work of our High Priest to offer the accepted gift as a part of the second sin-offering, because Jehovah was pleased to have it changed into a part of that offering for sin. The Head alone offers the sin-offering. Our part in these acts was merely a passive one—we remained inactive, though we were willing that any disposal pleasing to God might be made of us. At the time we did not know that Jesus offered us to the Father in these two ways. We simply lay, as it were, dead in His hands. Thus the offering of the gift and of the sin-offering was Jesus' exclusive work. Not before, but instantly after His offering of us as parts of the sin-offering, we became members of the High Priest's Body by being begotten as New Creatures; and only from then on do we coöperate with and under our Head in the various sacrificial acts whereby our human all is consumed for the Lord, even as the members of the natural body coöperate with the natural head. This does not mean that there is an equal partnership on the part of our Head and



ourselves as His Body members in the subsequent acts of sacrificial work, even as the members of the natural body do not have an equal partnership with the natural head in the acts of the human body. This Scriptural illustration of the natural head and body in their coöperation gives us a very accurate view of the coöperation of the Head and Body of the World's High Priest. The natural head does all the planning, willing, directing and empowering for the members of the natural body, and for each one according to its function. The natural members do not coöperate in any of the planning, willing, directing and empowering, but they coöperate in the execution of the acts planned, willed and directed, for which power is given by the natural head.


Thus our Head in the sacrificial works whereby the sacrifice is consumed does all the planning, willing, directing and empowering for each member of the Body of the World's High Priest. He plans and wills which one to use and which one not to use, how, when, where and for what to use or not use each member. He directs the whole operation by making such providential arrangements as are necessary for the execution of the specific work that is to be done or left undone. He likewise teaches each member what, how, when and where he is to do in the execution of the sacrificial acts. He also empowers each member to do the sacrificial acts by the promises, encouragements, restraints, corrections and instructions of the Truth, which He gives to each member of His Body. He further empowers them by strengthening their New Creatures for the sacrificial work and making the providences of each one of such a kind as will enable him to do the will of the Head in each sacrificial act. This, then, is the work of the Head of the World's High Priest in every one of the sacrificial acts following the offering of the sacrifice. Of course this is the overshadowing, the all-important, part of the sacrificial



acts following the offering which He exclusively makes. And what are our parts in the sacrificial acts subsequent to His offering of us to the Father as parts of the sin-offering? Exactly that which a natural member of the natural body does to the plans, volitions, directions of the natural head, according to its empowerments. Thus we must respond to what He plans, wills, directs, in that for which He empowers us, by executing in and under Him His plans, volitions and directions, by His empowerment. We must therefore by the qualities that He has already wrought in us learn for every separate sacrificial act what His plan, will and direction for us are. This we do by a study of His Word, Spirit and Providence; and we must accept and use the strength that He gives us by His Spirit and Word, and use the supports that He offers us by His Providence for empowerment to execute the sacrificial acts that He as our Head plans, wills and directs for us. And we must execute the acts themselves. Thus there is a continual coöperation of the Head and of the individual members of the World's High Priest in executing each separate sacrificial act. Thus, for example, in our mission toward the brethren each one of us and under our Head lays down his life for the brethren in a vast number of sacrificial acts, all of which our Head plans, wills and directs, and for all of which we accept and use the empowerment that our Head gives. This matter is so apparent from the many Scriptures already quoted, from our Pastor's numerous explanations and exhortations on the subject, and from the experiences of every one of the members of the Body of the World's High Priest, that unless we understood that the Levites are in Azazel's hands, and as a result express his thoughts, we would be at a loss to explain how some of them could be so thoughtless as to teach that the World's High Priest will not be active until after glorification!



A caution is here necessary: While the Head of the World's High Priest sacrifices each member of His Body and does the primary part in the subsequent sacrificial acts in which each one of His Body members as a secondary part coöperates, each individual member of the World's High Priest, after the Head has done His primary part in the subsequent acts of sacrifice, in and under His Head sacrifices himself alone—he does not sacrifice, use up the rights of, his fellow-members. Our privilege toward one another is in and under our Head to assist as we can by teaching, encouraging, supporting and helping our fellow-members to perform the sacrificial acts that our Head has planned, willed and directed for them to do, and to do which He empowers them, when He indicates that we are to give them our assistance in their sacrifice. In so doing the Body-members coöperate with their fellow Body-members in their sacrificial acts, but do not sacrifice one another. Each individual member, though helped by other members, is to carry out his own consecration. All of this coöperation is beautifully illustrated in the mutual care of the members of the natural body.


Some of the Levites raise the objection that we can no more deal with Azazel's Goat than we can sacrifice the Lord's Goat. We answer that there is no parallel whatever in the character of the two works. Even if we should be sacrificing other members of the Lord's Goat as such, which we do not do, there would be no parallel between the two acts; for sacrificing the Lord's Goat is a totally different thing from leading forth Azazel's Goat to the gate and to the fit man and delivering him to Azazel. How do we lead it to the gate? By resisting its revolutionism. How do we deliver it to the fit man? By withdrawing Priestly fellowship. How do we deliver it to Azazel? By withdrawing all brotherly help and favor. Why can we not do these things as well, for example, as we do the



opposite acts: (1) Support the fellow-members in their sacrifices; (2) give them Priestly fellowship; and (3) give them our brotherly help and favor? The two sets of acts just instanced are a contrasted parallel; and at once a sound mind will admit that the two sets of acts can be and are done. Moreover, the fact that St. Paul and the Corinthian Church (1 Cor. 5: 1-13) gave the incestuous brother in their midst the treatment that is a strict parallel to that which the Priesthood now gives Azazel's Goat proves conclusively that we, as an Under-priesthood, can and should coöperate with our Head, while in the flesh, in leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate and to the fit-man, and in delivering him to Azazel for the destruction of the flesh, that the Spirit may be saved—a result that proves that our work toward Azazel's Goat is a Priestly work—a work well pleasing to the Lord. It would be just as logical to deny that as a part of the Priesthood we can assist the Priesthood (Rev. 19: 7), and can give testimony to the world of the coming Kingdom (Matt. 24: 14), as to deny that as a part of the Priesthood we can act toward Azazel's Goat. But let us not forget that the Levites are denying our coöperation with our Head in sacrifice, just to overcome the thought that we can under our Head deal with them as a part of Azazel's Goat, which we can do as typed.


If we do not now coöperate with our Head in the sacrificial acts whereby our humanity is consumed as a part of the sacrifice of the antitypical Lord's Goat, why does St. Paul exhort us as that Goat to "go forth unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach" (Heb. 13: 13)? Why does he exhort us by Him to offer the sacrifices of praise to God [preach things reflecting credit on God], as sacrifices pleasing to God, if we do not now share in the sin-offering (Heb. 13: 15, 16)? Why does St. Peter assure us that we are a holy Priesthood to offer sacrifices, if we do not now



share in the sin-offering (1 Pet. 2: 5)? Why does St. Paul call us in the incense of our sacrifices a sweet savor of Christ unto God, if we do not now share in the sin-offering (2 Cor. 2: 14-17; Phil. 4: 18)? If we do not now share in the sin-offering, why does St. Paul say, If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin [as a sin-offering] (Rom. 8: 10)? If we do not now share in the sin-offering, how could we as parts of the Mediator serve the New Covenant in the work on its seal (2 Cor. 3: 6)? If we are co-workers with Christ, why do we not share with Him in that which His Work in the flesh was—a sin-offering (2 Cor. 6: 1)? If we do not share now with Him in the sin-offering, how can we now be suffering and dying with Him (Rom. 6: 3-11; 8: 17; 2 Cor. 1: 5; 1 Cor. 15: 29-34; 4: 10; Gal. 2: 20; Phil. 3: 10; 2 Tim. 2: 10-12; 1 Pet. 2: 19-24; 3: 14, 17; 4: 12-14, 16, 19)? If we are not now sharing in the sin-offering, how could we be taking up the cross and following Christ (Matt. 16: 24)? If we are not now sharing in the sin-offering, how could we be now drinking of His cup and be in process of being baptized with His baptism (Mark 10: 35-39)? If in this life it is not possible for us to share in the sin-offering, how can we share in it at all, seeing the sufferings for sin are limited to the fleshly life (1 Pet. 4: 1)? Surely the Levitical position on this subject is in the most direct contradiction to the Scriptures, our Pastor's writings, the facts of our experience and the conclusions of reason. By claiming that the Body members of Christ cannot on this side of the vail have any part in the sin-offering, J.F.R. has in fact, though perhaps not intentionally, repudiated the Church's participation with her Lord in His sacrificial cup, and has actually, though perhaps not intentionally, joined the 1909 sifters in denying our sharing in the sin-offering, so far as the Church's participation in its sacrifice is concerned.


Having shown and disproved the foundation error



in the article under review, we will now briefly refute its incidental errors. In par. 29, like Studies, Vol. VII, on Rev. 8: 1-3, it says that "the altar represents the place of sacrifice." The golden altar represents the Christ as New Creatures, and the brazen altar represents the Christ as human beings. Pars. 28, 30 falsely define the word present as standing ready, as used in Rom. 12: 1, where it means yield or surrender—make a present of yourself. The writer says (par. 30) that it is manifest from the Scriptures that the New Creatures do not do any sacrificing. Heb. 7: 27; 9: 14; 1 Pet. 2: 5 and numerous other Scriptures, some of which have already been quoted, or cited, show that they do; and in the very nature of the case New Creatures are the only ones that can; for the New Creature is the priest who does the sacrificing. In par. 31 he denies that the New Creature sacrifices, affirming that instead he fulfils his covenant. There is no real contrast here, because the New Creature fulfils a covenant of sacrifice, i.e., a covenant which requires him to sacrifice (Ps. 50: 5). The very terms of this passage prove that to fulfill his covenant he must sacrifice, and thus the attempted contrast disproves his position. In pars. 32-34, he alludes to, quotes and perverts T 45, par. 2, which tells of the under-priests' also waving the offering, to prove his position. The reverse is proved by the paragraph. It shows that the under-priests share in sacrificial acts, and that continually until death. Hence this section proves that we as new creatures of Christ's Body in this present life "may not lay down or cease to offer all our powers [our human all] in God's service." To quote such a paragraph to prove that we do not share in sacrificial acts proves his increasing right-eye darkening, if it does not prove his dishonesty; for, lawyer-like, he may be quoting it with perverting remarks to explain away its damaging effects on his error. If his remarks in par. 38 on children caring for their parents mean that



consecrated children are not duty-bound to care for parents in need, especially in the needs of old age, his remarks are unscriptural (1 Tim. 5: 4, 8). However, he may be writing against the spirit of overdoing for parents beyond their needs, exemplified in the man who wanted to wait until his father died before becoming a disciple (Matt. 8: 21, 22). If the latter is his thought, it is correct; but if it is, he has not clearly expressed himself. The twists and perversions in pars. 43 and 44, whereby he seeks to explain away our sacrificial acts as explained in Heb. 13: 15, 16, are only more proofs of further right-eye darkening, as the entire article also proves this fact.


In Z '26, 179-184, is published an article on "Sacrifice And Obedience," which requires some attention. Par. 19 states that Esau types Satan. God himself tells us that he types those rejected from attaining the election, from attaining the Little Flock: (1) Nominal Fleshly Israel (Rom. 9: 1-13); consequently by the parallel dispensation (2) Nominal Spiritual Israel (Is. 63: 1-6); and (3) the Great Company (Heb. 12: 16, 17). This article sets forth Saul as the type of all the [supposed] anointed in 1918, in and out of the Truth, and finally winds up with his typing those [supposed] anointed ones who fail to smite clericalism so thoroughly as "that evil servant" has been exhorting them to do. This, of course, is another feature of his pet theory of the special favors for his followers, the supposed temple since 1918. Saul types a variety of characters. For the Gospel Age he types the crown-losing leaders of the various denominations, who in each denomination took the place of leadership held by the faithful leaders [antitypical Samuel] who announced the stewardship truths, i.e., Saul types the Gospel-Age princes. These, like Saul, were at first humble, loyal and serviceable to the Truth. But, like their type, Saul, they shortly failed to put obedience above service. The faithful Little Flock leaders rebuked



them, even as Samuel rebuked Saul. They have run ahead of the Lord ["my Lord delayeth"], even as Saul failed to wait for the sacrifice until Samuel came to make it. They failed to make a complete job of killing their love of sin as the Little Flock does, even as Saul failed to extirpate all Amalekites, while Samuel saw to it that they were extirpated. They smote their fellow servantsthe Little Flock leaders—even as Saul persecuted David. They became teachers of error ["eating and drinking with the drunken"—symbolic sorcery], even as Saul took to witchcraft. Thus the facts show that Saul typed the crown-losing leaders of Christendom throughout a large part of the Age. This is the large type—that of the Gospel Age. But there has been a smaller type, which is confined to the Epiphany, and which has been fulfilling and has yet some time to run. This we hope later to give in detail. The remark of par. 24, that shortly after 1918 the Lord completely rejected the ecclesiastical systems, is totally out of harmony with the Bible, reason and facts. The Bible and facts prove that He did this in 1878, and reason re-enforces this view.


In Z '26, 227-235, under the title "The Temple Of God," is another article that requires attention. In par. 2 J.F.R. confounds the two messengers of Mal. 3: 1. The first of these messengers is (1) John the Baptist, the preparer of Jesus' First Advent, and (2) the Church in the flesh, the preparer of Jesus' Second Advent; and the second of these messengers is Jesus in His First Advent and in the Second Advent (Mark 1: 1-4; Is. 40: 3). Our Pastor on the basis of the Bible and the parallel dispensations very properly applied Mal. 3: 1 to both Harvests, and the time of them to 29 A.D. and onward and 1874 and onward. In par. 6 the parable of the virgins, and in par. 7 that of the talents, are used to prove the fact of our Lord's coming to His temple. They teach it. But the Scriptures, reason and facts teach that this was in 1874, not



in 1918 as he claims. To prove that the Lord came to His temple lately, the Society's president quotes Ezek. 21: 27— "I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, … until He come whose right it is, and I will give it to Him." The sophistry in the use of this passage lies in the use of the word come. In the Bible, in connection with the Second Advent, the word to come sometimes means the act of His arrival in 1874 (Acts 1: 11), sometimes applies to the entire Parousia (Matt. 24: 42-44; Luke 18: 8; Rev. 1: 7), sometimes applies to the entire Epiphany (Matt. 23: 39; 24: 30; 26: 64; Luke 18: 8; 1 Cor. 4: 5; 11: 26; Col. 3: 4; Rev. 1: 7; Jude 14), sometimes applies to both the Parousia and the Epiphany, as several of the foregoing passages prove, and sometimes applies to the whole Millennium (Matt. 25: 31; Luke 9: 26; 2 Thes. 1: 10). This word that can cover so many periods cannot be used from Ezek. 21: 27 to prove that the Lord came to His temple in 1918. This passage does not refer to the temple at all, but has reference to the end of the Times of the Gentiles in 1914. Therefore it cannot be used to prove Christ's coming to His temple at all, let alone in 1918. In this passage it refers to the fact that in 1914 He would arise to a work that would result in Israel's deliverance from the Gentile's dominion. This was His starting ouster proceedings against the Gentile nations in 1914. Hence the passage has no reference to our Lord's coming to His temple, to which He came in 1874. He began in 1874 to assail Satan's kingdom by a wordy conflict, and continued it until 1914, when from a wordy war He proceeded to a dispossession of the nations, and additionally to the physical overthrow of Satan's empire.


We have in the first part of this chapter shown that the troubles on the Society in 1918 were fit-man experiences, and as such were intended to burn out some of the dross of the Levites—the symbolic silver—and to burn their wood, hay and stubble (Mal. 3: 2, 3; 1 Cor. 3: 13-15).