Publication date
9/15/10
Volume
31
Number
18
The WatchTower
Present Truth Re Advocate and Mediator
The Watchtower Magazines
/../literature/watchtower/1910/18/1910-18-1.html
 
 
VOL. 
XXXI 
BROOKLYN, 
N. 
Y., 
SEPTEMBER 
15, 
1910 
PRESENT 
TRUTH-RE 
ADVOCATE 
AND 
MEDIATOR 
No. 
18 
A 
grntleman 
who 
fancies 
himsrlf 
commissioned 
to 
he 
the 
Advocate 
of 
the 
New 
Covenant, 
but 
who 
ha~ 
not 
vet 
come 
to 
see 
that 
the 
New 
Covenant 
could 
not 
be 
the 
Old 
Covenant, 
takes 
us 
to 
task 
saying: 
"Four 
years 
ago 
it 
was 
present 
truth 
that 
the 
Eclitor 
of 
THE 
\V 
ATCH 
TOWER 
nrcclrd 
a 
Mediator 
be­ 
tween 
{lad 
and 
Himself. 
Three 
years 
ago 
it 
become 
present 
trnth 
that 
hr 
dors 
not 
need 
a 
Mecliator 
bctwren 
God 
and 
him­ 
sdf. 
Did 
the 
Editor 
of 
'I'm, 
WATCH 
TOWER 
leave 
the 
present 
truth 
?" 
We 
rrply, 
No, 
the 
Editor 
of 
THE 
WATCH 
TOWER 
did 
not 
leave 
the 
prrspnt 
truth. 
He 
kPpt 
all 
the 
trnth 
that 
he 
then 
ha,1 
and 
has 
adclrcl 
to 
it. 
The 
lig-ht 
has 
scattered 
some 
more 
of 
thC1 
darkness, 
so 
that, 
with 
the 
very 
same 
thonght 
that 
he 
had 
fonr 
~'pars 
ago. 
he 
now 
spps 
that 
he 
used 
the 
wrong 
word 
In 
exprpssing 
that 
thong-lit. 
He 
now 
sees 
that 
he 
should 
have 
usrd 
the 
SPriptural 
tprm 
Advocate 
instead 
of 
the 
word 
J\ledi­ 
ator. 
He 
110W 
secs 
that 
himself 
ancl 
othprs 
in 
the 
past 
have 
nSf·d 
language 
too 
carelessly, 
ber;an~c 
of 
the 
general 
eonfu~ion 
aIHI 
mix-np 
handp[l 
down 
from 
the 
dark 
ages. 
He 
now 
spes 
that 
the 
Scriptures 
nowllPre 
say 
that 
the 
church 
has 
a 
Mediator 
or 
cvpr 
will 
have 
a 
J\Iediator, 
and 
that 
they 
nowhpre 
say 
that 
the 
Covpnant 
of 
sacrifice. 
under 
which 
the 
church 
is 
developcd, 
has 
a 
Ml'diator. 
The 
Eclitor 
of 
THE 
\~·.\TCII 
TOWER 
is 
lparning 
day 
hy 
day 
more 
clearly 
to 
rightly 
diVIde 
the 
\Vord 
of 
Trnth 
and 
to 
use 
Scriptural 
terms 
only. 
Tlw 
Scriptnres 
do 
say, 
"\Ve 
have 
an 
Advocate 
with 
the 
Fa 
tllPr." 
(1 
.J 
ohn 
2: 
I) 
They 
do 
not 
say 
anywhere, 
\Ve 
have 
a 
Mediator 
bctwpcn 
God 
and 
us. 
The 
Editor 
of 
THE 
\VATCH 
TOWER 
is 
trying 
to 
as,ist 
God's 
people 
to 
think 
and 
speak 
eorrpdly 
rpsppcting 
the 
great 
work 
of 
Atonempnt 
for 
sin, 
the 
merit 
of 
which 
lips 
in 
the 
sacrifice 
of 
.Jesus 
and 
the 
privilege 
to 
share 
in 
which 
is 
granted 
to 
the 
elect 
during 
this 
Gospel 
agp. 
The 
same 
critic 
innoccntly 
asks 
for 
any 
Bible 
text 
to 
show 
that 
thc 
f'll1lreh, 
the 
hriflc 
of 
Christ, 
cloes 
not 
IH'ed 
a 
Mediator. 
How 
foolish! 
])ocs 
thr 
Bihle 
unclprtake 
to 
say 
all 
the 
things 
that 
are 
not 
w? 
One 
would 
think 
that 
no 
special 
abIlity 
wouIeI 
he 
lIl'cessary 
to 
discern 
that 
there 
is 
no 
need 
of 
a 
J\lefliator 
betwern 
r'ri('J1cls, 
\Ve 
nevpr 
had 
this 
thought! 
\Vhen 
we 
uspd 
the 
won 
I 
as 
resppcts 
the 
ch\ll'eh 
we 
used 
it 
thought­ 
lessly, 
just 
as 
our 
opponpnts 
are 
using 
it 
now; 
we 
used 
it 
without 
notirillg' 
that 
the 
Bible 
nowhere 
intimates 
a 
Mediator 
]wtween 
the 
Fathl'r 
ancl 
the 
church. 
It 
is 
because 
present 
truth 
is 
progres,ive 
that 
we 
have 
e]earer 
light 
on 
the 
same 
facts 
than 
we 
had 
four 
~'rars 
ago, 
eVf'n 
as 
we 
then 
had 
clearer 
light 
than 
we 
pnjoyecl 
year" 
before 
that. 
The 
Editor 
of 
THE 
\VATCII 
T()WEI~ 
has 
IH'liPVPd 
in 
.Jpsus 
as 
his 
Redeemer 
from 
childhood. 
Hp 
did 
not 
lIncIe'rqbnd 
the 
philosophy 
of 
the 
divine 
plan 
of 
thp 
agps 
thpn, 
hllt 
nevertheless, 
his 
simple 
faith 
was 
a 
sllflic·ipnt 
hasis 
for 
a 
ponsprration 
of 
his 
all 
to 
the 
Lord. 
and 
a 
Sllf!iC·jpTlt 
hasis 
for 
thp 
flivine 
apppptance 
of 
the 
sacrifice 
and 
thc~ 
hrgdhng 
of 
tll(' 
holy 
~pirit. 
SIIll'e 
then 
the 
light 
of 
this 
han-pst 
tilllP 
has 
h,'pn 
shining 
more 
and 
more 
dearly 
as 
the 
~· 
.. 
ars 
go 
h~'. 
The 
light 
of 
presrnt 
trllth 
dops 
not 
contradict 
th 
.. 
light 
of 
past 
trlllh, 
Imt 
ponfirms 
it 
and 
further 
clarifies 
0111' 
vision 
an'] 
in(,],l'a'ps 
Olll" 
hope 
an<1 
Ollr 
joy. 
And 
is 
not 
this 
tnlP 
of 
all 
of 
(;ot!'s 
l)(,o)llp 
now 
walking 
ill 
the 
narrow 
way? 
Those 
who 
arr 
now 
"waking 
up" 
to 
a 
realization 
of 
the 
faet 
that 
for 
spvpntPPIl 
y 
.. 
ars 
they 
have 
been 
in 
darkness 
arc 
ac·knowle<1ging 
that 
th 
.. 
y 
han· 
not 
heen 
walking 
for 
those 
sPvl'Tltepn 
years 
in 
tIl<' 
"path 
of 
the 
just, 
which 
shineth 
more 
and 
morp 
unto 
tho 
pprfcct 
day." 
For 
the 
past 
seventeen 
years 
of 
thrir 
liYf's, 
thr 
spvpntrpn 
yean'l 
of 
their 
best 
Christian 
exprripn('e, 
thr~' 
helirvpd 
that 
the 
Vine 
and 
the 
branches 
are 
onp-that 
thp 
Head 
amI 
his 
J\TemlJ('n; 
are 
one; 
that 
the 
sutrer­ 
ings 
of 
The 
Christ 
arr 
one-that 
the 
church 
fills 
up 
that 
whi.·h 
is 
IJPhind 
of 
thp 
alllictions 
of 
Christ-that 
the 
death 
of 
Christ 
is 
onp-that 
the 
church 
bccomes 
dead 
with 
him 
sacri­ 
fiejally. 
aft('r 
having 
hc('n 
justifirt! 
through 
faith 
in 
his 
blood, 
his 
sarrificr. 
For 
spyrnl('rn 
yrars 
they 
helieved 
that 
the 
Prophet 
spake 
of 
the 
sufferings 
of 
Christ 
(Head 
and 
body) 
and 
thr 
glory 
that 
shall 
follow; 
that 
to 
he 
dead 
with 
him 
signifies 
to 
he 
haplizpcl 
into 
his 
sacrificial 
death 
as 
in 
contrast 
with 
Adam's 
ppnalty-death. 
AmI 
to 
drink 
of 
his 
cup 
signi­ 
firs 
a 
share 
of 
hi, 
sufTerings 
and 
that 
thr 
hope 
before 
all 
such 
is, 
that 
"if 
we 
he 
dpa<1 
with 
him 
wp 
shall 
also 
live 
with 
him"· 
and 
"if 
we 
suffer 
with 
him. 
w~ 
shall 
also 
reign 
with 
himJ, 
For 
seventeen 
years 
thrse 
frirnfls 
told 
us 
that 
they 
believed 
and 
rejoieed 
in 
Rt. 
Palll's 
sentiments 
of 
Phi!. 
3:9-11, 
the 
hope 
to 
be 
found 
in 
Christ 
(mf'mhrrs 
of 
his 
hocly). 
not 
havin'" 
their 
own 
righteousnpss, 
whirh 
j, 
of 
the 
Law 
(Covenant), 
b:t 
that 
which 
is 
through 
faith 
in 
Christ, 
the 
righteousness 
whieh 
is 
of 
God 
by 
faith 
(not 
by 
the 
New 
(Law) 
Covenant), 
that 
we 
might 
know 
him 
amI 
the 
power 
of 
his 
resurrection 
(sharing 
his 
resurrrction 
as 
his 
membprs) 
an<1 
the 
fellowship 
of 
his 
sufferings 
(being 
partakers 
of 
the 
suffrrings 
of 
Christ), 
being 
made 
eon 
formable 
unto 
his 
death 
(not 
a 
different 
death 
from 
his, 
but 
a 
similar 
one-not 
a 
death 
as 
a 
sinnpr, 
but 
a 
sacrifi­ 
cial 
one), 
if 
by 
any 
nll'ans 
I 
might 
attain 
unto 
The 
resurrec­ 
tion 
of 
The 
deae!. 
\Ve 
are 
not 
nmrlllllring 
nor 
('omplaining 
against 
these 
friends 
because 
of 
the 
grpat 
loss 
which 
they 
han 
sllstained­ 
the 
loss 
of 
spiritual 
sight 
into 
the 
deep 
things 
of 
God-into 
"the 
mystery, 
which 
is 
Christ 
in 
you 
the 
hope 
of 
glory." 
\Ve 
compassionate 
their 
loss 
and 
remrmhrr 
the 
J\laster's 
wor<1s, 
"If 
the 
light 
that 
is 
in 
thce 
herome 
darkn('ss. 
how 
great 
is 
that 
darkness!" 
While 
not 
attempting 
to 
jlHlgr 
the 
hearts 
of 
any 
who 
have 
gone 
out 
from 
us, 
we 
may 
be 
confiflent 
that 
the 
Lord 
did 
not 
allow 
them 
to 
go 
alit 
without 
a 
sufli,cient 
reason. 
We 
r('garcl 
their 
loss 
of 
spiritual 
sight 
as 
a 
divine 
judgment 
upon 
them, 
just 
as 
truly 
as 
we 
regard 
the 
opening 
of 
the 
eyes 
of 
their 
nnderstanding 
as 
a 
mark 
of 
divine 
favor. 
Remember­ 
ing 
that 
the 
Lord 
is 
not 
dealing 
arbitrarily 
either 
in 
receiving 
his 
people 
into 
the 
light 
nor 
in 
casting 
some 
out 
of 
the 
light, 
we 
are 
bound 
to 
suppose 
that 
there 
were 
conditions 
of 
heart 
in 
these, 
our 
friends, 
with 
which 
the 
Lord 
was 
not 
well 
pleased. 
The 
lesson 
to 
us 
is 
that 
we 
must 
walk 
in 
the 
light 
and 
that 
we 
must 
put 
away 
from 
anI' 
hearts 
and, 
as 
far 
as 
possible 
from 
our 
flesh. 
everything 
contrary 
to 
the 
divine 
standards 
of 
meekness, 
gentleness, 
purity, 
justice. 
love, 
"if 
hy 
any 
means 
we 
would 
attain 
unto 
The 
resurrection 
of 
The 
Dead." 
Bdore 
dismissing 
this 
subject 
we 
must 
answpr 
another 
foolish 
que~tion, 
namely, 
\\'hat 
answer 
do 
we 
make 
to 
the 
follo'wing 
:- 
A 
certain 
sister 
owning 
property 
in 
hpr 
own 
name 
found 
that 
her 
husband 
had 
taken 
possession 
of 
it, 
rents, 
monies, 
all, 
and 
that 
he 
ignored 
her 
entirely 
in 
the 
matter. 
Upon 
her 
request 
to 
have 
some 
of 
her 
own 
money 
and 
property 
given 
her 
by 
her 
father, 
the 
husband 
became 
angry 
and 
sought 
out 
some 
of 
our 
opponents. 
The 
latter. 
after 
the 
usual 
course, 
partially 
misrepresented 
our 
teachings 
respecting 
the 
atone­ 
ment 
for 
sin. 
The 
husband 
replied, 
That's 
what 
my 
wife 
says. 
She 
says, 
"Jesus 
didn't 
die 
for 
you; 
he 
died 
for 
me-but 
not 
for 
you; 
I 
will 
die 
for 
you." 
What 
will 
we 
answer 
to 
this? 
\Ve 
answer 
that 
we 
would 
not 
believe 
a 
man 
on 
oath 
who 
was 
trying 
to 
cheat 
his 
wife 
out 
of 
her 
own 
money. 
\Ve 
do 
not 
believe 
that 
the 
wife 
said 
anything 
of 
the 
kind, 
nor 
that 
she 
has 
any 
such 
idea. 
We 
believe 
that 
the 
husband 
misrep­ 
resented 
his 
wife's 
statement. 
just 
as 
our 
opponents 
uni­ 
formly 
misrepresent 
THE 
\V 
ATCH 
TOWER 
statements. 
A 
half­ 
truth 
may 
be 
an 
untruth, 
if 
it 
gives 
a 
misconception 
and 
is 
intended 
so 
to 
do. 
A 
truthful 
statement 
would 
not 
serve 
the 
purpose 
of 
our 
opponents, 
for 
the 
truth 
is 
logical 
as 
nothing 
else 
is. 
St. 
Paul 
remllrked, 
"\Ve 
he 
slanderously 
reported." 
The 
same 
is 
true 
today. 
The 
self-contradictions 
of 
our 
opponents 
are 
remarkable. 
In 
one 
hrrath 
thry 
tell 
us 
that 
they 
have 
been 
deceived 
by 
us 
for 
sevrnteen 
years. 
In 
the 
next 
thpy 
say 
that 
we 
have 
changcd 
within 
the 
last 
three 
years. 
In 
thp 
nrxt 
thpr 
afiirm 
that 
they 
are 
in 
aecord 
with 
everrthing 
in 
the 
RCRTPTURE 
STUDIES, 
and 
yet 
they 
arr 
oppo,­ 
ing 
thpm 
as 
best 
they 
are 
able. 
Oh, 
inronsistpnc~', 
thou 
art 
not 
a 
jewel; 
nor 
dost 
thou 
reflect 
beauty 
or 
crpdit 
upon 
any­ 
hody! 
A 
COVENANT 
BY 
SACRIFICE 
NOT 
THE 
NEW 
COVENANT 
In 
all 
of 
our 
writings 
for 
thE' 
past 
thirt~· 
years 
we 
have 
pointed 
out 
the 
New 
Oovenant 
as 
eoming 
fully 
into 
operation 
at 
the 
close 
of 
this 
Gospel 
age. 
We 
have 
pointed 
out 
that 
it 
is 
the 
covenant 
under 
which 
restitution 
blessings 
are 
to 
come 
to 
the 
world 
of 
mankind. 
", 
e 
pointed 
it 
out 
as 
the 
Keturah 
Covenant-separate 
and 
distinct 
from 
the 
Hagar 
Covenant. 
under 
which 
natural 
IsraE'1 
was 
developed, 
typified 
by 
Ishmael 
and 
separate 
and 
distinct 
also 
from 
the 
original 
Abrahamie 
Covenant, 
typified 
by 
Sarah, 
whose 
seed 
Isaac 
typified 
The 
Christ, 
Head 
and 
body. 
We 
saw 
and 
pointed 
out 
to 
others, 
so 
that 
they 
saw, 
that 
the 
antitypieal 
Isaac-The 
Christ, 
Head 
nnd 
body-is 
the 
Melehisedee 
priest, 
of 
which 
Jesus 
is 
the 
Head 
and 
the 
church 
his 
body-the 
great 
Pripst 
under 
whom 
the 
New 
Covenant 
is 
to 
be 
mnde 
effective 
to 
Israel 
and 
to 
the 
world 
of 
mankind 
through 
hrael. 
\Ve 
pointed 
out 
also 
that 
thp 
elpet 
chureh 
of 
this 
Gospel 
age, 
a 
"royal 
priesthood." 
must 
all 
offer 
sacrifice; 
as 
the 
Apostle 
declares. 
"Every 
priest 
i,s 
onlainrd 
of 
God 
to 
offer 
hath 
gifts 
and 
saerifiees 
for 
sin." 
We 
pointf'd 
out 
that 
our 
Lord 
Jesus 
is 
the 
great 
High 
PrieRtt 
of 
our 
profrssion 
and 
that 
he 
offered 
himself 
in 
sacrifice 
anci 
(291-292) 
[46801 
Vou. XXXT BROOKLYN, N. Y., SEPTEMBER 15, 1910 No. 18 PRESENT TRUTH—RE ADVOCATE AND MEDIATOR A gentleman who fancies himself commissioned to be the Advocate of the New Covenant, but who hay not vet come to see that the New Covenant could not be the Old Covenant, takes us to task saying: “Four years ago it was present truth that the Editor of Tiare Warcn Tower needed a Mediator between God and Himsclf. Three years ago it become present truth that he does not need a Mediator between God and himself. Did the Editor of Tum Watci Tower leave the present truth?” We reply, No, the Editor of Tme Watcn ‘Tower did not leave the present truth. He kept all the truth that he then had and has added to it. The light has seattered some more of the darkness, so that, with the very same thought that he had four years ago, he now secs that he used the wrong word In expressing that thought. He now sees that he should have used the Seriptural term Advocate instead of the word Mediator. He now sces that himself and others in the past have used language too carelessly, because of the general confusion and mix-up handed down from the dark ages, He now sces that the Scriptures nowhere say that the church has a Mediator or ever will have a Mediator, and that they nowhere say that the Covenant of sacrifice, under which the church is developed, has a Mediator. The Editor of THE Watcn Tower is learning day by day more clearly to rightly divide the Word of Truth and to use Scriptural terms only. The Seriptures do say, “We have an Advocate with the Father.” (1 John 2:1) They do not say anywhere, We have a Mediator between God and us, The Editor of THe WarcH Towrr is trying to assist God’s people to think and speak correctly respecting the great work of Atonement for sin, the merit of which lies in the sacrifice of Jesus and the privilege to share in which is granted to the elect during this Gospel age. The same critic innocently asks for any Bible text to show that the church, the bride of Christ, does not need a Mediator, How foolish! Does the Bible undertake to say all the things that are not so? One would think that no special ability would be necessary to discern that there is no need of a Mediator between friends. We never had this thought! When we used the word as respects the church we used it thoughtlessly, just as our opponents are using it now; we used it without noticing that the Bible nowhere intimates a Mediator between the Father and the church, It is because present truth is progressive that we have clearer light on the same facts than we had four years ago, even as we then had clearer light than we enjoyed vears before that, The Editor of THE Waren Towrr has believed in Jesus as his Redeemer from childhood, He did not understand the philosophy of the divine plan of the ages then, but nevertheless, his simple faith was a suflicient hasis for a consecration of his all to the Lord. and a sufficient. basis for the divine acceptance of the sacrifice and the hegetting of the holy Spirit. Since then the light of this harvest time has heen shining more and more clearly as the years go by. The light of present truth does not contradict the light of past truth, but confirms it and further clarifies our vision and increases our hope and our joy. And is not this true of all of God’s people now walking im the narrow way? Those who are now “waking up” to a realization of the fact that for seventeen vears they have been in darkness are acknowledging that they have not heen walking for those seventeen years in the “path of the just, which shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” For the past seventeen years of their lives, the seventeen years of their best Christian experience, they believed that the Vine and the branches are one—that the Head and his Members are one; that the sufferings of The Christ are one—that the chureh fills up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ—that the death of Christ is one—that the church becomes dead with him sacrificially, after having been justified through faith in hig blood, his sacrifice. For seventeen years they believed that the Prophet spake of the sufferings of Christ (Head and body) and the glory that shall follow; that to be dead with him signifies to he baptized into his sacrificial death as in contrast with Adam’s penalty—death. And to drink of his cup signifies a share of his sufferings and that the hope before all such is, that “if we he dead with him, we shall also live with him”; and “if we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him.” For seventeen years these friends told us that they believed and rejoiced in St. Panl’s sentiments of Phil, 3:9-11, the hope to be found in Christ (members of his hody). not having their own righteousness, which is of the Law (Covenant), but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is (291-292) of God by faith (not by the New (Law) Covenant), that we might know him and the power of his resurrection (sharing his resurrection as his members) and the fellowship of his sufferings (being partakers of the sufferings of Christ), being made conformable unto his death (not a different death from his, but a similar one—not a death as a sinner, but a sacrificial one), if by any means I might attain unto The resurrection of The dead. We are not murmuring nor complaining against these friends because of the great loss which they have sustained— the loss of spiritual sight into the deep things of God—into “the mystery, which is Christ in you the hope of glory.” We compassionate their loss and remember the Master’s words, “Tf the light that is in thee become darkness, how great is that darkness!” While not attempting to judge the hearts of any who have gone out from us, we may be confident that the Lord did not allow them to go out without a sufficient reason. We regard their loss of spiritual sight as a divine judgment upon them, just as truly as we regard the opening of the eyes of their understanding as a mark of divine favor. Remembering that the Lord is not dealing arbitrarily either in receiving his people into the light nor in casting some out of the light, we are bound to suppose that there were conditions of heart in these, our friends, with which the Lord was not well pleased. The lesson to us is that we must walk in the light and that we must put away from our hearts and, as far as possible from our flesh, everything contrary to the divine standards of meckness, gentleness, purity, justice. love, “if by any means we would attain unto The resurrection of The Dead.” Before dismissing this subject we must answer another foolish question, namely, What answer do we make to the following :— A certain sister owning property in her own name found that her husband had taken possession of it, rents, monies, all, and that he ignored her entirely in the matter. Upon her request to have some of her own money and property given her by her father, the husband became angry and sought out some of our opponents. The latter, after the usual course, partially misrepresented our teachings respecting the atonement for sin. ‘The husband replied, That’s what my wife says. She says, “Jesus didn’t die for you; he died for me—but not for you; I will die for you.” What will we answer to this? We answer that we would not believe a man on oath who was trying to cheat his wife out of her own money. We do not believe that the wife said anything of the kind, nor that she has any such idea. We believe that the husband misrepresented his wife’s statement, just as our opponents uniformly misrepresent THE WaAtcH ToWER statements, A halftruth may be an untruth, if it gives a misconception and is intended so to do. A truthful statement would not serve the purpose of our opponents, for the truth is logical as nothing else is. St. Paul remarked, “We be slanderously reported.” The same is true today. The self-contradictions of our opponents are remarkable. In one breath they tell us that they have been deceived by us for seventeen years. In the next they say that we have changed within the last three years. In the next they affirm that they are in accord with everything in the SCRIPTURE STUDIES, and yet they are opposing them as best they are able. Oh, inconsistency, thou art not a jewel; nor dost thou reflect beauty or credit upon anyhody! A COVENANT BY SACRIFICE NOT THE NEW COVENANT In all of our writings for the past thirty years we have pointed out the New Covenant as coming fully into operation at the close of this Gospel age. We have pointed out that it is the covenant under which restitution blessings are to come to the world of mankind. We pointed it out as the Keturah Covenant—separate and distinct from the Hagar Covenant. under which natural Israe] was developed, typified by Ishmael and separate and distinct also from the original Abrahamic Covenant, typified by Sarah, whose seed Isaac typified The Christ, Head and body. We saw and pointed out to others, so that they saw, that the antitypical Isaac—The Christ, Head and body—is the Melchisedec priest, of which Jesus is the Head and the church his body—the great Priest under whom the New Covenant is to be made effective to Israel and to the world of mankind through Israel. We pointed out also that the elect church of this Gospel age, a “royal priesthood.” must all offer sacrifice; as the Apostle declares, “Every priest is ordained of God to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin.” We pointed out that our Lord Jesus is the great High Priest of our profession and that he offered himself in sacrifice and [4680]

This website uses cookies to improve the website and your experience. By continuing to browse this website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. If you require further information or do not wish to accept cookies when using this website, please visit our Global Policy on Use of Cookies and Similar Technologies .